Dr. Ted Mazer stands in the doorway of his office before seeing his first patient of the day. Feb. 26, 2016. Megan Wood, inewsource.
San Diego area doctors seldom complain to their patients about low Medicare pay. But for two long decades, many have complained bitterly to each other.
[one_half]
[highlight]On the radio…[/highlight]
”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/251772064″
[box type=”shadow this-matters”]Higher physician reimbursement should improve access to health care and shorten appointment wait times for Medicare beneficiaries.[/box]
[/one_half]
That’s because an old and complex federal formula reimburses physicians here as if they were practicing in “rural” areas, and assumes their costs of rent and staff are low, resembling those in Fresno or El Centro rather than Anaheim or Los Angeles.
“The joke among doctors has been ‘Look at all our cows,’” quipped Dr. James Hay, a family practitioner in Encinitas and former California Medical Association president.
Doctors regard these underpayments, alleged to be in the billions nationally, as a federal snub, with consequences to patient care. The lower rate has depressed the physician supply here, making access to care for Medicare patients tougher. In subtle ways, it has dissuaded some area physicians from accepting Medicare beneficiaries or expanding the number they see, they say.
It also has encouraged “concierge” cash-only practices and lengthened wait times beneficiaries must endure for an appointment.
Now, after a tempestuous 14-year fight and a $5 billion lawsuit that got as far as the U.S. Supreme Court, a congressionally approved fix will gradually increase doctors pay in San Diego County and 14 other California counties that were inappropriately classified. Starting Jan. 1, the new rule, embedded in the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014, will pay them higher rates, more like doctors practicing in Orange County and other higher cost urban areas of the state.
Other categories of health providers who bill Medicare, such as nurse practitioners, podiatrists and optometrists, may expect more money too.
“We’ll be able to have reimbursement that more closely approximates the cost of providing care instead of underpaying us as if we were El Centro,” said Dr. Ted Mazer, a San Diego ear, nose and throat specialist who has been among the leaders in the fight to change Medicare’s payment formula.
“And, because Medicare rates are followed by virtually all commercial payers here,” rates from private insurance companies should rise too, he said.
Higher payments “will help the viability of our practices, both in attracting new doctors as our older doctors age out, and our existing population grows older and needs more care,” he said. And, “it will put money on the table for people to buy new technologies (like electronic health record capabilities).”
Nicknamed “the GPCI fix,” the correction changes the geographic practice cost index formula Medicare uses to reflect regional physicians’ costs, such as hiring office staff, paying rent and buying malpractice insurance in Medicare’s 89 GPCI localities around the country.
Pinpointing a particular event that pushed Congress to make the change is difficult. In the end, Mazer said, it came down to “just good old politics of facts and timing,’’ the support of key elected officials on both sides of the aisle, and the physicians’ persistence.
Elizabeth McNeil, the California Medical Association’s vice president for federal government relations, estimated the GPCI fix will bring about $52 million a year more to California providers in these 15 counties that submit Part B Medicare claims, depending on inflation. San Diego County doctors who bill Medicare will get about half of that total.
The GPCI fix still won’t bring San Diego County’s pay up to Orange County’s level, but it’s a start.
“That would have been nice,” Mazer said, “but that’s not what was approved.”
About 7,000 San Diego County doctors will be affected, with increases of about 6 percent in increments over the next six years.
Former San Diego County Medical Society CEO Tom Gehring said the change ultimately will add $10,000 to the average doctor’s annual payments in this county.
Technically, the new rule requires Medicare to move 15 counties from “locality 99, rest of state” or rural, to regions that use metropolitan statistical area costs to calculate payment. Los Angeles, San Francisco, Orange, Alameda, Solano, San Mateo, Ventura and Santa Clara counties have long had their own metropolitan formula, all of which pay more than locality 99, which covers all the other California counties.
The pay differences are significant. Today Medicare reimburses doctors in the so-called rural counties like San Diego $76.48 for a simple office visit for an established patient, while a few miles north, “urban” Orange County doctors receive $82.19. For procedures, the differences are greater. San Diego gastroenterologists receive $548.57 for a colonoscopy with polyp removal, while in Orange County, the pay is $602.12. San Francisco and Los Angeles rates are even higher.
In fact, the eight currently “urban” areas of the state all have higher reimbursement than San Diego County. For example, cystoscopy and treatment in transurethral surgery pays doctors in those eight areas on average 12 percent, or $34.95, more than it pays doctors in locality 99. A dilation of the esophagus pays 14 percent more.
The adjustment will come in increments; each year San Diego doctors will get one-sixth of the difference between the locality 99 rate and their new MSA rate until the full amount is reached in 2022.
Despite the area’s scenic beauty and weather as enticements, doctors here have long complained of the challenge in bringing new doctors to their practices. Interested partners think they’ll be paid based on high Southern California costs of living, and they’re surprised.
“It’s been very hard to recruit in San Diego,” said Dr. John LaFata, an internal medicine doctor whose six-physician Vista practice struggled to hire three internists in the last two years.
“I know hospitals have a hard time recruiting cardiologists, general and vascular surgeons and other surgical subspecialists because the cost of living is much higher here. People say, ‘I can do much better in Iowa if I can tolerate the weather.’ Much of that is due to (Medicare’s) differential payment structure.”
Dr. Vimal Nanavati, an Otay Lakes critical care cardiologist, said the pay increase will have “a huge impact” on physician practices. It will mean “shorter wait times for patients,” and doctors can spend more time with patients during appointments. “If you’re getting paid less, you have to see more patients. Now, we can take more patients and take our time seeing them. Our practices will be easier to manage.”
Dr. Sherry Franklin, a pediatric endocrinologist in Solana Beach who has some Medicare patients in her solo practice, called the GPCI fix “a win-win for physicians and consumers. Physicians have earned the right to a raise. This will increase access for patients.”
Franklin said that over time, the pay increase will allow physicians to “expand the pool of Medicare patients they can afford to see.”
Additionally, for commercial plans like Aetna that follow Medicare reimbursement, more money may translate to better contracts that increase the number of physicians in those plans’ networks.
Of course, when physician fees go up in Medicare, so will beneficiaries’ 20 percent co-pays under Part B. If Medicare increases a $100 payment to $106, for example, the beneficiary’s co-pay goes from $20 to $21.20.
LaFata doesn’t think patients will notice, or if they do, that they will mind. He said many have supplemental Medicare plans that cover those co-payments. And those who don’t will gladly pay the extra money. “Many patients tell me they think we’re underpaid anyway.”
How did San Diego get labeled rural?
In the 1960s, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services established physician payment rules based on cost of practice formulas in 210 payment localities, adjusting for high cost areas such as New York City and Los Angeles. Back then, San Diego County was a much cheaper place to live and work.
But times changed; San Diego grew as did its costs. Yet when CMS updated GPCI regions in 1996, consolidating payment areas nationally from 210 to 89, it failed to reflect those shifts.
‘”And nobody was paying attention,” said Dr. Larry de Ghetaldi, an emergency room physician in “rural” Santa Cruz.
Except that de Ghetaldi was paying attention. In 2001, in his dual role as administrator of a surgical center and director of a medical group, he was surprised to see Medicare’s wage and cost index paid Santa Cruz hospitals a lot more than the index it used to pay Santa Cruz doctors.
De Ghetaldi and CMA representatives took their beef to Tom Scully, then CMS administrator. “Why do you use a different set of maps to pay physicians than you do to pay hospitals?” de Ghetaldi asked.
“The answer was, ‘We will look at it.’ And the answer always was, ‘We will look at it,’” he said.
Just up the road, doctors in adjacent Santa Clara County with similar costs and demographics receive pay that is 20 percent higher.
GPCI kings and queens
De Ghetaldi, Mazer, McNeil, Santa Barbara gastroenterologist Edward Bentley, and Rochelle Dornatt, chief of staff for California Congressman Sam Farr, became obsessed with the issue. They called themselves “the GPCI kings and queens,” de Ghetaldi said.
They made dozens of trips to Washington to plead with Medicare officials and lawmakers, but were frequently left waiting for appointments that were canceled or delayed. It was a frustrating time.
[one_half]
[box]
Doctors in these counties will get higher Medicare reimbursement
El Dorado
Marin*
Monterey
Placer
Riverside
Sacramento
San Benito
San Bernardino
San Diego
San Joaquin
San Luis Obispo
Santa Barbara
Santa Cruz
Sonoma
Yolo
*Marin County will move out of a locality it shares with Solano and Napa counties into its own region, resulting in more pay for Marin physicians.
[/box]
[/one_half]
In 2007, de Ghetaldi’s brother Dario, a Millbrae attorney, filed a $3.2 billion lawsuit against the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on behalf of Mazer and seven “rural” California counties, including San Diego. It was later amended to $5 billion, and was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.
One such trip was particularly exasperating, Mazer recalled. They were scheduled for a two-day meeting in Medicare’s Baltimore headquarters. “It was like going to a military compound. They had mirrors to look under our car.”
By mid-morning the group sensed “about as big of a stonewall as you could get,” Mazer said. “No matter what we said, they couldn’t possibly do it. We were simply asking that they shift physician pay to the system they used for hospitals, to the MSAs, so they wouldn’t have two conflicting systems.”
Solution after solution was offered, Mazer said, but “CMS just spit in our face and said, ‘No, no.’”
The lawsuit seemed like the only way. It sought class-action status for 250 counties across the country that were in the same undervalued boat.
“It questioned several administrators in several presidential administrations, and said publicly, you (CMS) guys knew what you were doing was wrong,” Mazer said. “You knew how to fix it. But you just didn’t want to fix it. Year after year, the problem kept compounding. And they hurt people in the process.”
Ultimately, the Supreme Court refused to recognize the plaintiffs’ class action standing and the lawsuit died. But the ”GPCI kings and queens” did not give up.
In Baltimore, Medicare officials argued repeatedly that legally, they could only fix a state’s GPCI disparities if each state’s own doctors unanimously agreed to a statewide solution.
That’s because the physician fee schedule has generally been a zero-sum game; one doctor’s pay raise requires another’s pay cut. So state medical societies would have to find their own rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul solution. And their decisions would have to be unanimous.
Physician groups dispute that is the law. But they tried that solution too.
A near fistfight on the House floor
“I have four feet of shelf space full of nothing but GPCI files,” said Dornatt, whose boss a decade ago introduced a bill that would resolve the problem just within California.
After months of work, Farr, a Central Coast Democrat, had “lined up players on both sides,” she said.
“Congressman Bill Thomas, (a Republican representing the Central Valley) who chaired the Ways and Means Committee, his staff was telling me, yes, we’ll put it in. Just have Mr. Farr go to the floor and Mr. Thomas will sign off on it.
“But when Mr. Farr went to the floor, Mr. Thomas refused to sign off on it and they almost had a fistfight,” Dornatt said. Added Adam Russell, Farr’s press representative, Farr “made a fist at Thomas he was so angry.”
Thomas reneged in fear that physicians in his rural Central Valley district would be hurt by a new formula that took San Diego and other wealthier counties out of locality 99.
Similar urban/rural cost disparities exist in about 250 counties in other states, including Ohio, Georgia, Maryland and Texas. But efforts to make corrections in those states flamed out. Why? Because in California, there was data; the underpayments couldn’t be ignored. Less so elsewhere, Gehring said.
“We made the most noise about it,” Dr. Larry de Ghetaldi said.
Over the years, high level reports recognized and addressed the problem. The Urban Institute in 2004, the Government Accountability Office in 2005 and in 2007, CMS in 2008, the Institute of Medicine in 2011 and 2012, and the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission in 2013.
Who pays for the GPCI fix?
The GPCI fix law directs CMS to adjust certain overvalued procedures to more accurately reflect the actual work required for that service.
“That means a payment cut” affecting some physicians for some services across the country, McNeil said. Fine details will come with the Physician Fee Schedule rules for 2017 this summer.
The new law also protects rural counties that will remain in locality 99 from having their payments reduced when San Diego and the 14 other counties are reassigned next year.
While he’s grateful the fight is finally over, the GPCI fix will not return what doctors lost since 1996, Mazer lamented. And, he’s “still ticked off” the correction requires eight years to fully implement.
“There’s still a part of me that says, ‘you guys ripped us off for years. You should give us something for that.’ But it’s done. We are where we are.”
Ironically, he said, most doctors in counties like San Diego are unaware they’ll see more money from Medicare. “It’s taken so long to get here, and so long to implement. At least we’re moving forward now, and CMS is now ready to do the right thing.”
inewsource is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom dedicated to improving lives in the San Diego region and beyond through impactful, data-based investigative and accountability journalism.
Our Vision
Betrayals of the public trust are revealed and rectified, wrongdoing is deterred, and inequities are illuminated thanks to inewsource’s deep, dogged, fact-based reporting.
Our Values
Truth: Above all else, we value the importance of a free and credible press. Truth is the cornerstone of democracy and the core value for inewsource.
Transparency: We build trust with our readers by adhering to the highest standards and ethics, and to reporting with facts, precision and context.
Collaboration: Our newsroom prioritizes collaboration over competition. We regularly partner with media outlets on reporting projects and to share content.
Community: Our reporting serves the San Diego region, and we strive to build relationships with our audience by getting out into the community to listen and engage.
Ethics Policy
inewsource will conduct its business with the highest standards of decency, fairness and accuracy. These standards shall apply equally to inewsource employees, freelancers and all others engaged in gathering information on behalf of inewsource. All receive a copy of these ethical standards.
In the course of our reporting, we will consistently:
● Identify our organization and ourselves fully and avoid false representations of any kind to any source.
● Obtain consent from all parties before electronically recording any interview or conversation except in extraordinary cases authorized by the Managing Editor and Editor. If a source refuses to be taped, that must be honored; no recordings are to be made without consent.
● Respect the individual’s right to privacy. inewsource will never manipulate or barter private, personal, health, financial or other extraneous information in the course of preparing its reports.
● Any source we describe or write about in any significant manner must be contacted. The employee should document all efforts to contact the source, and if unsuccessful, should summarize these efforts at contact in the body of his/her writing.
In addition, inewsource follows the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists. The latest version, revised in 2014, can be found here.
Our organization retains full authority over editorial content to protect the best journalistic and business interests of our organization. We will maintain a firewall between news coverage decisions and sources of all revenue. Acceptance of financial support does not constitute implied or actual endorsement of donors or their products, services or opinions.
We accept gifts, grants and sponsorships from individuals and organizations for the general support of our activities, but our news judgments are made independently and not on the basis of donor support. Our organization also may consider donations to support the coverage of particular topics, but our organization maintains editorial control of the coverage. We will cede no right of review or influence of editorial content, nor of unauthorized distribution of editorial content.
Our organization will make public all donors who give a total of $1,000 or more. We will accept anonymous donations for general support only if it is clear that sufficient safeguards have been put into place that the expenditure of that donation is made independently by our organization and in compliance with INN’s Membership Standards.
Diversity
Diverse Voices
Inclusiveness is at the heart of thinking and acting as journalists, and it supports the educational mandate of inewsource. Race, class, generation, gender, sexual orientation, ability, and geography all affect point of view. inewsource believes that reflecting societal differences in reporting leads to better, more nuanced stories and a better-informed community.
inewsource is committed to employment equity and diversity.
Diverse Staffing Report
Below is a breakdown of staffing data at inewsource. We determine the composition of our staff by asking them to self-identify. It is based on a newsroom of 11 and a total staff of 15 as of August 2020. Percentages are based on 15 total survey responses. The numbers include full-time and part-time staff, full-time fellows and full-time and part-time interns.
All Staff Percentages are based on 15 total survey responses. The numbers include full-time and part-time staff, full-time fellows and full-time and part-time interns.
Newsroom Percentages are based on 15 completed survey responses to this question.
Business Percentages are based on 15 completed survey responses to this question.
Gender Identity
Gender Identity
Gender Identity
Women
80%
Women
82%
Women
75%
Men
20%
Men
18%
Men
25%
Sexual Orientation
Sexual Orientation
Sexual Orientation
Straight
87%
Straight
82%
Straight
100%
LGBTQ-identifying
7%
LGBTQ-identifying
7%
Not specified
7%
Not specified
7%
Speak a language beyond English at home
33%
Speak a language beyond English at home
18%
Speak a language beyond English at home
75%
Race/Ethnicity
Race/Ethnicity
Race/Ethnicity
White
67%
White
73%
White
50%
Hispanic or Latinx
20%
Two or more races
18%
Hispanic or Latinx
50%
Two or more races
13%
Hispanic or Latinx
9%
Age
Age
Age
20-29
40%
20-29
45%
20-29
25%
30-39
47%
30-39
45%
30-39
50%
60 or older
13%
60 or older
9%
60 or older
25%
* The percentages in the charts have been rounded and may not add up to 100.
Ownership Structure, Funding and Grants
inewsource is a nonprofit organization, whose legal name is Investigative Newsource. It does business as inewsource. The business was incorporated on Aug. 4, 2009 in the state of California. Tax-exempt status as a 501c3 was granted by the IRS on Sept. 15, 2010. inewsource is funded primarily by individual contributions and foundation grants. We are guided by a board of directors.
Editorial independence: Journalists employed by inewsource take no editorial direction from donors whose contributions may support the organization. inewsource will not hesitate to report on its donors when events warrant. Our Editorial Independence Policy details the firewall between journalism and revenue.
To be transparent with the public, inewsourcelists its donors on its website. In cases where a donor is the subject of an inewsource story, additional disclosure will be made.
Financial Documents
We do our due diligence to earn your trust in our reporting, as well as in our governance and financial sustainability. All of our financial documents are made available to view so that our supporters can trust we are sound stewards of your philanthropy. Review our IRS Form 990s, audited financial statements and annual reports:
Transparency is one of our core values. Today, there is a need to build trust with our audience because new media and ways of communicating spread lies and slanted news faster than “real” news. At the same time, this era of new technologies makes it easier than ever for news organizations to be transparent. People don’t just have to believe us, they can investigate our investigations with our source materials.
Transparency is key to building credibility.
inewsource reporters have primary responsibility for reporting, writing, and fact-checking their stories. But before a story is published, the reporter reviews all facts and sources with an editor or another reporter. Facts must be traced to a primary source.
In addition, we “transparify” certain investigative stories. This process involves publishing a version of the web story with hyperlinks to all the story’s facts. This is proof that all facts have been documented with primary evidence. We do this to build trust with our readers and to be as transparent as we hope the public figures and institutions that we hold accountable will be.
Unnamed Sources
Not all sources are created equal. Some sources cannot speak authoritatively, provide proper analysis or speak specifically to every inquiry placed before them. To maintain the integrity of our reporting, inewsource reporters must select sources who can speak with validity to the topic at hand, and avoid presenting unqualified or underqualified sources as experts.
If an interviewed source has a conflict of interest, or whose qualifications may be tangential or limited, reporters will note that within the context of the story.
It is incumbent upon reporters to fully background their sources to uncover conflicts of interest or slant prior to using them in a story.
Unless discussed prior to an interview, all subjects talking to inewsource journalists are on the record. Specifically, the source is identified by name and title, and their exact or paraphrased words are attributed to them for publication. If journalists speak with sources who are not politicians, public figures or those not commonly interviewed by journalists, staff should explain clearly that information discussed will be on the record and for publication.
There are times, however, when information may be critical for a story but cannot be found or verified by other means. For example, a source may be able to confirm specific information about a series of events they may have witnessed, but have legitimate concerns about using their name or title. The repercussions to the source could be legal, job-related retribution or personal safety. The source and journalist must discuss these potential dangers and terms of use should be agreed upon by both parties.
If inewsource publishes information from an anonymous source, inewsource will explain to readers, in as much detail as possible, why we agreed to anonymity.
Corrections and Clarifications
inewsource strives for accuracy in everything we do, which is why we are committed to fact checking our content. But sometimes we make errors. When that happens, we correct them. We also clarify stories when something we’ve written is confusing or could be misinterpreted.
We endeavor to always be transparent about our commitment to correcting errors and clarifying misperceptions. When staffers see, hear or read about a possible issue with the accuracy of any inewsource content, they are expected to bring it to the attention of an editor and the web producer so it can be evaluated to determine how to proceed.
Including the web producer is key because inewsource is a multimedia news organization and shares its content with multiple partners on multiple platforms. The web producer must alert these partners about corrections and clarifications.
Corrections and clarifications should be included at the bottom of stories and dated.
Actionable Feedback and Newsroom Contacts
Our audiences know the region we cover and have a stake in maintaining and improving the quality of life in San Diego and Imperial counties. We know your knowledge and insights can help shape what we cover and how we cover it. We invite your comments and complaints on news stories, suggestions for issues to cover or sources to consult. We rely on you to tell us when we get it right and when we need to keep pushing.
Your comments, questions and suggestions can be sent to the team as a whole at contact@inewsource.org or you can contact a specific member of our staff.
Lorie Hearn is the chief executive officer, editor and founder of inewsource. She founded inewsource in the summer of 2009, following a successful reporting and editing career in newspapers. She retired from The San Diego Union-Tribune, where she had been a reporter, Metro Editor and finally the senior editor for Metro and Watchdog Journalism. In addition to department oversight, Hearn personally managed a four-person watchdog team, composed of two data specialists and two investigative reporters. Hearn was a Nieman Foundation fellow at Harvard University in 1994-95. She focused on juvenile justice and drug control policy, a natural course to follow her years as a courts and legal affairs reporter at the San Diego Union and then the Union-Tribune.
Hearn became Metro Editor in 1999 and oversaw regional and city news coverage, which included the city of San Diego’s financial debacle and near bankruptcy. Reporters and editors on Metro during her tenure were part of the Pulitzer Prize-winning stories that exposed Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham and led to his imprisonment.
Hearn began her journalism career as a reporter for the Bucks County Courier Times, a small daily outside of Philadelphia, shortly after graduating from the University of Delaware. During the decades following, she moved through countless beats at five newspapers on both coasts.
High-profile coverage included the historic state Supreme Court election in 1986, when three sitting justices were ousted from the bench, and the 1992 execution of Robert Alton Harris. That gas chamber execution was the first time the death penalty was carried out in California in 25 years.
In her nine years as Metro Editor at the Union-Tribune, Hearn made watchdog reporting a priority. Her reporters produced award-winning investigations covering large and small local governments. The depth and breadth of their public service work was most evident in coverage of the wildfires of 2003 and then 2007, when more than half a million people were evacuated from their homes.
Laura Wingard is the managing editor at inewsource. She has been an editor in San Diego since 2002, working at The San Diego Union-Tribune, KPBS and now inewsource. At the Union-Tribune, she served in a variety of roles including as enterprise editor, government editor, public safety and legal affairs editor, and metro editor. She directed the newspaper’s award-winning coverage of the October 2007 wildfires and the 2010 disappearance of Poway teenager Chelsea King. She also oversaw reporting on San Diego’s pension crisis.
For two years, Wingard was news and digital editor at KPBS, overseeing a team of four multimedia reporters and two web producers. She also was the KPBS liaison with inewsource and collaborated with inewsource chief executive officer and editor Lorie Hearn on investigative work by both news organizations.
Wingard also worked at the Las Vegas Review-Journal as the city editor and as an award-winning reporter covering the environment and politics. She also was the assistant managing editor for metro at The Press-Enterprise in Riverside. She earned her bachelor’s degree at California State University, Fullerton, with a double major in communications/journalism and political science.
Brad Racino is the assistant editor and a senior reporter at inewsource. He has produced investigations for print, radio and TV on topics including political corruption, transportation, health, maritime, education and nonprofits.
His cross-platform reporting for inewsource has earned more than 50 awards since 2012, including back-to-back national medals from Investigative Reporters and Editors, two national Edward R. Murrow awards, a Meyer “Mike” Berger award from New York City’s Columbia Journalism School, the Sol Price Award for Responsible Journalism, San Diego SPJ’s First Amendment Award, and a national Emmy nomination.
In 2017, Racino was selected by the Institute for Nonprofit News as one of 10 “Emerging Leaders” in U.S. nonprofit journalism.
Racino has worked as a reporter and database analyst for News21; as a photographer, videographer and reporter for the Columbia Missourian; as a project coordinator for the National Freedom of Information Coalition and as a videographer and editor for Verizon Fios1 TV in New York. He received his master’s degree in journalism from the University of Missouri in 2012.
Byline Policy
Most of our articles carry a byline to identify the author. In some cases, inewsource will use a brand byline such as “Staff” or “inewsource” for internal or editorial information about the newsroom. In these instances, inewsource‘s Editor and Managing Editor are responsible for content that uses a brand byline.
The Trust Project
inewsource is proud to be a member of The Trust Project and support efforts to increase transparency in journalism by displaying the 8 Trust Indicators on our stories. We launched the Trust Indicators on Sep. 16, 2020.
Privacy Policy
inewsource has prepared this Privacy Policy to explain how we collect, use, protect, and share information when you use our inewsource.org website (the “Site“) or when you use any of our services (the “Services“).
By using the Site or Services you consent to this Privacy Policy.
Log Data
Like many site operators, we collect information that your browser sends whenever you visit our site (“Log Data”).
This Log Data may include information such as your computer’s Internet Protocol (“IP”) address, browser type, browser version, the pages of our site that you visit, the time and date of your visit, the time spent on those pages and other statistics.
Cookies
Cookies are files with small amount of data, which may include an anonymous unique identifier. Cookies are sent to your browser from a web site and stored on your computer or mobile device.
Like many sites, we use “cookies” to collect information. You can instruct your browser to refuse all cookies or to indicate when a cookie is being sent. However, if you do not accept cookies, you may not be able to use some portions of our site.
Certain pages on our site may set other third party cookies. For example, we may embed content, such as videos, from another site that sets a cookie. While we try to minimize these third party cookies, we can’t always control what cookies this third party content sets.
Additionally, we may use third party services — such as those that provide social media conveniences, measure traffic, send newsletters and facilitate donations — that may place cookies on your computer. We don’t have any way of knowing how such services handle the resulting data internally. inewsource makes no claim, nor takes liability for the insecure submission of information via these applications.
Here are the services whose cookies you can find on inewsource.org:
Sharing buttons for Facebook and Twitter. These use the standard scripts provided by each company.
Google Analytics, which we use to measure site traffic. Google Analytics gathers certain non-personally identifying information over time, such as your IP address, browser type, internet service provider, referring and exit pages, time stamp, and similar data. We also use Facebook Pixel to measure, optimize and build audiences for advertising campaigns served on Facebook. In particular it enables us to see how our users move between devices when accessing our website and Facebook, to ensure that our Facebook advertising is seen by our users most likely to be interested in such advertising by analyzing which content a user has viewed and interacted with on our website.
Stripe, which allows us to accept donations through our website.
Salesforce to manage newsletter subscriber, donor, and other identifiable user data.
Mailchimp, to manage newsletter distributions. We collect your email address if you choose to subscribe to one of our email newsletters or email news alerts. Other optional information that you enter when subscribing – such as your first and last names or city are simply so that we can deliver more personalized email newsletters. We DO NOT sell, rent or market your information to any other parties. We retain your information only as long as necessary to provide your service. When we send emails, it collects some data about which users open the emails and which links are clicked. We use this information to optimize our email newsletters and, as aggregate information, to explain what percentage of our users open and interact with our newsletters.
Personal Data
We only collect personally identifiable information such as your name and email address when you sign up for a newsletter, donate to our organization, or otherwise submit it to us voluntarily. We do not share your personal data with any third parties other than some common service providers, whose products use your information to help us improve our site, deliver newsletters, or allow us to offer donation opportunities.
inewsource limits access to all user data for the purposes of newsletter, fundraising, and customer service only. User data is not sold to or otherwise shared with anyone not working with or for the inewsource.
You may unsubscribe or opt-out of our email and mail communications at any time by hitting the “unsubscribe” button in any email you receive from inewsource, or by emailing us at contact@inewsource.org or calling us at 619-594-5100.
Donor Information
The identities of all donors will be listed on our website. inewsource does not share, trade, sell, or otherwise release donors’ personal information to any third parties.
Refunds
If you encounter errors when donating on the website, please contact us at members@inewsource.org. For example, if you submit a donation for an incorrect amount or make a duplicate transaction please email us immediately so we can reverse the charges.
Cancellation of Recurring Donations
You can cancel your monthly recurring donations free of charge by notifying us at members@inewsource.org.
Links to Other Websites
Our site may contain links to documents, resources or other websites that we think may be of interest to you. We have no control over these other sites or their content. You should be aware when you leave our site for another, and remember that other sites are governed by their own user agreements and privacy policies, which should be available to you to read.
Disclaimers and Limitation of Liability
Although we take reasonable steps to prevent the introduction of viruses, worms, “Trojan Horses” or other destructive materials to our site, we do not guarantee or warrant that our site or materials that may be downloaded from our site are free from such destructive features. We are not liable for any damages or harm attributable to such features. We are not liable for any claim, loss or injust based on errors, omissions, interruptions or other inaccuracies on our site, nor for any claim, loss or injust that results from your use of this site or your breach of any provision of this User Agreement.
Contact Us
If there are any questions regarding this privacy policy, please contact us at contact@inewsource.org or call us at 619-594-5100.
Cheryl Clark is a contributing healthcare reporter at inewsource. To contact her with questions, tips or corrections, email clarkcheryl@inewsource.org.
More by Cheryl Clark