Anonymous Sources

Anonymous sources are the bane or pleasure of reporters and editors. These secretive agents can offer some juicy stories. The Washington Post and New York Times are champion advocates of these news origins — senior White House staff, member of the Secretary's policy team and even "Deep Throat".

Deep Throat was less an original source for quotes, but a guide to where the famous journalistic duo —Woodstein and Burnward— would find original and authentic data and sources who could reveal action from the first person.

While I am not castigating "anonymous(e) sources", I am advising readers to consider the adage "you get what you pay for". I, myself, have used them occasionally and then I tried to ensure independent verification of the statement or observation. But the number of times I've employed these sources can be counted one of Monk's paws.

While I have admit my own contamination from playing with these hidden news revelations, I will offer you some insight to the actual dangers of this tool and again warn you of its intrinsic low value and high combustibility.

As some know, I frequently report on the meetings of the Valley Health System (VHS) Board of Directors. The last regular meeting was June 29. I was there, so apparently was a reporter from our esteemed daily neighboring paper — The PE.

I'm always interested to read another reporters story of the same meeting or incident. I compare it to see if we had the same observations, interpreted the comments and behavior similarly, thus at the same meeting, and if I missed something critical.

In the middle of the story, I read the following sentence:

" Quorum renegotiated contracts, including those with five major carriers, to go to a fee-for-service model, which board members say didn't work."

This immediately raised the question in my mind, "which board members?" Although several board members were quoted in other places in the story, it would be unfair to assume it was them. This reference criticizing the new contracts is actually attributed to no one, just "directors".

The reason that concerns me is that it conflicts with VHS management's views and the directors' response to a question that I posed at the June 29 meeting. After Melanie Van Winkle, vice president of finance, made a presentation on the May financial results, I asked if I was correctly interpreting the revenue from July through May. She confirmed that I was right.

For the 11 months of 2008-09, the net patient revenue was $153.8 million compared to $138.4 million for the same period during 2007-08. A $15.4 million increase, with the new fee-for-service contracts, is an 11.1 percent growth.

I then asked if the capitation (fixed fee-per-patient) model had been continued, would VHS have collected more revenue than the fee-for-service model generated. Winkle was quite certain that the former model would have lagged behiind the current revenue models and VHS had made a prudent decision to switch contract terms.

After Winkle answered the question, none of the directors made a comment or contradicted Winkle.

So that's the problem with anonymous sources, were these directors telling the PE the truth, but afraid to admit that in a public board meeting? Or was something more nefarious at play here and the private comments could not stand the light of public scrutiny?

I don't know the answers, but it again raises my concern about employing sources who are reluctant to acknowledge publicly what they say or think.