NEWS CONTROL FEARED IN HHS CONSOLIDATION

by Rick Weiss

Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson has begun implementing a major consolidation of the department's communications, legislative, and public affairs offices-a move HHS says will improve the quality and distribution of health-related information to Congress and the public, but which critics fear will impose unprecedented controls over the flow of information from the increasingly high-profile department.

Most agencies within HHS, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration, currently run their own public information and legislative affairs offices. Some of those agencies have many such offices, each specializing in an area of science or medicine. Each of the 27 institutes and centers at NIH, for example, has its own communications staff.

NASW Reacts To HHS Policy See below

All told, HHS oversees a decentralized system of more than 50 offices that deal directly with the news media, the public, and congressional members and staff-usually without having to deal with the secretary's office.

Under the new system-now being implemented by HHS and the Office of Management and Budget and detailed in 2003 budget papers-all such staff will come under the direct control of Thompson's office.

The plan had been quietly floated, criticized, and tabled months ago, sources said. But [in January], to the distress of many inside and outside HHS, the department began a major push to get the system
in place.

Memos went out to agency heads to submit the names of all personnel
involved in the flow of information to Congress, the media, and the public, in preparation for a consolidation of those services in the secretary's office. At NIH [on Jan. 11], institutes were given just one hour to comply with a demand for a finalized list.

It is not clear how the restructuring will affect communications employees within the HHS agencies. Legislative personnel may move downtown to the secretary's office, sources said, and some public affairs employees may be moved to other kinds of jobs in their respective agencies. "The goal is somewhat obvious: to create a more cohesive and efficient structure," HHS spokesman Kevin Keane said in an interview. But he acknowledged that unlike in the current system, responses to information requests from lawmakers, the media, or interest groups will in many cases now require an additional layer of review by the secretary's office.

The idea, Keane said, is: "Let's figure out what we need to communicate and let's do it together." But critics of the consolidation plan, including many within HHS and on Capitol Hill, see it as an effort to gain greater control over the administration's "message" and enhance the appearance of a unified department.

"The worst thing is that the people who will be controlling the information flow are going to be spin doctors instead of medical doctors," said a communications director within the NIH, speaking on condition of anonymity. "You have to suspect that this is being done when there is no commissioner at FDA and no
director at NIH so [the secretary's office] can get permanent control."

HHS has been stung by criticism that it gave muddled and contradictory information after the U.S. anthrax attacks, with information provided by Thompson and his aides sometimes conflicting with information from CDC scientists. Thompson also found himself embarrassed during the public debate over human embryonic stem cell research when his characterization of President Bush's new policy was rosier than that of some NIH researchers who spoke to the media.

Sources close to Thompson said those kinds of experiences irritate the secretary.
"It's all about control," said an NIH communications official. "The motto we're hearing around here is 'One department speaking with one voice.'"

On Capitol Hill, congressional aides said they, too, were disturbed by the effort.
"Many on the Hill think this is a bad idea," said a senior Democratic Senate staffer. "There's a concern that this effort to consolidate will lead to the advice
and information given to the Hill being more nuanced with politics than is oftentimes the case."

For the news media, the hurdle of having to get a green light from HHS headquarters before gaining access to experts in FDA, NIH, and other agencies is likely to narrow the range of available sources and slow the information flow. Calls to the usually accessible information officers at the NIH, CDC, and FDA for this article all were rebuffed with the same refrain:

"You'll have to go through HHS."

HHS spokesman Keane said the two days it took him to get back to this reporter was not representative of how the new system would work. _

"HHS Secretary Says Agencies Must Speak With One
Voice: Some Fear New Controls on Flow of Information,"
Washington Post, Jan. 14, 2002. © 2002 The Washington
Post Company

Rick Weiss is a Washington Post staff writer.

NASW PROTESTS HHS DECISION

[NASW has joined the Association of Health Care Journalists (www.ahcj.umn.edu) in protesting the reorganization of communications, legislative, and public affairs offices within HHS. The following news release was issued on Jan. 30, 2002. To date, no response from HHS.-Ed.]

Federal reorganization plan could threaten public access to health information. Health and science writers voice concerns.

Among the principles that govern the relationship between the people and our government is that the public must have access to information, so that we may effectively participate in the development of public policy and monitor the
conduct of public servants.

The proposed reorganization of communications, legislative, and public affairs offices of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) raises questions about how the public's access to information will be protected and enhanced. Presently, agencies within HHS, including the National Institutes of Heath, the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Food and Drug Administration, largely manage their own public information and legislative affairs offices. It appears that the proposal contained in the draft 2003 federal budget would place those offices under the direct management of the Office of the Secretary.

If the result of this reassignment is to weaken the ties between the communications staff and the scientific and policy staff of the agencies, while binding them more closely to the top political appointees of HHS, the public's access to objective information on critical health issues could be compromised. These concerns are heightened by the recent experience with serious and repeated communication bottlenecks that occurred during the immediate post-9/11 period, and then the anthrax attacks. These bottlenecks deprived the
public of timely and vital health information.

HHS officials have made verbal assurances than any changes would improve communication between their agencies and the public. This commitment can be demonstrated by incorporating public input into whatever reorganization proposal emerges.

As we go forward, HHS officials must, in word and deed, uphold the principle of effective participation of informed citizens in our government.

Andrew Holtz, President Association of Health Care Journalists

Paul Raeburn, President National Association of Science Writers

---

Return to NASW homepage.

Return to NASW Members' Lobby.

Return to ScienceWriters Newsletter homepage.