When others frequently misinterpret an organization’s claim, is the problem the messenger, the message, or both? Journalists — including some on its own staff — continue to draw incorrect conclusions from the work of KFF, formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation, about the Dec. 31 expiration of enhanced, Covid-era insurance subsidies. Yet KFF refuses to alter its message, suggesting a deeper ideological bias in its work.
No, Premiums Aren’t Doubling
To separate spin from facts and briefly summarize what I have stated in greater detail elsewhere: KFF’s claim that “premium payments will more than double” if the enhanced subsidies expire conflates total premiums with the net portion of premium enrollees pay out of pocket, even though the original, circa-2010 Obamacare subsidy regime will still pay 75-80 percent of the average enrollee’s premium. Moreover, because nearly half of enrollees currently qualify for benchmark coverage with no out-of-pocket premiums, focusing on percentages obscures the fact that most (but not all) households will face a modest out-of-pocket increase of roughly $50-100 per month.
Many reporters have taken KFF’s claim that “premium payments will double” to mean that total “premiums will double.” In one case, a writer at Axios acknowledged the error and corrected it. But no sooner had I convinced an editor at The Hill to correct a story claiming “premiums will double” — not least because KFF itself had called this wording inaccurate — than another story from the same publication also included an incorrect claim about premiums doubling. A CNN reporter cited KFF as a reason not to adjust her claim that “premiums will double,” even after I showed her evidence that KFF personnel concede this wording is inaccurate.
Continuing Use of a Misleading Slogan
Most notably, KFF’s Health News team made the same inaccurate claim that “premiums will double” in an article about health costs. When questioned about it, the publication appended a clarification to the story. But the incident raises more fundamental questions: Why does KFF keep using a phrase that its own reporters do not understand? And would KFF Health News, which purportedly “has editorial independence for story ideas and content,” take a critical look at the confusing terminology used by KFF researchers?
KFF declined to answer either question. KFF Health News Executive Editor Alex Wayne did not respond to my question about whether his team would scrutinize its parent organization, and KFF researchers ignored my request to issue a press release clarifying their statements and phraseology.
Reporters often describe KFF as “nonpartisan” because it, like other 501(c)(3) entities, cannot engage in party political activities. But that doesn’t mean the organization doesn’t hold ideological biases. President Drew Altman has admitted as much: “Topic selection can convey bias every bit as much as study or poll or story selection can.”
Word selection can convey bias too. KFF advertises a focus on “communications strategies that will earn trust,” but has used phrasing that multiple media outlets, including several so-called reporters specializing in health policy, have misinterpreted. When KFF persists in using this terminology, and its executives use phrases like “eye-popping premium increases” to describe cost effects averaging $50-100 per month, it’s reasonable to question whether KFF’s mission — which “is at its core … about inequality and economic security, racism, and the future of our diverse society” — has biased its work.
Press or Propaganda?
At stake is far more than what some might dismiss as semantic arguments about wonky policy terminology. KFF Health News advertises itself as the “largest health newsroom in the country.” When that newsroom, despite its claims of “editorial independence,” will not take a critical look at KFF research, then it becomes little more than a mouthpiece for the parent organization. And a wide swath of health care stories nationwide will reflect that organization’s ideological slant, which is perhaps the point.
Reasonable people can disagree about the effects of a $50-100 monthly cost increase on households of modest means if the enhanced subsidies expire. But KFF’s continued use of misleading terminology suggests an ideology that would conjure objections if the average financial effect on enrollees were $10 or $10,000. Neither readers nor reporters should disabuse themselves of the organization’s biases.
