Tracy Weber is a managing editor at ProPublica, where she helps oversee and maximize projects across the newsroom.
Weber joined the original ProPublica staff as a reporter in 2008 from the Los Angeles Times, where she paired with Charles Ornstein on a series of articles about a troubled hospital that won the Pulitzer Prize for public service in 2005, among other awards. At ProPublica, she and Ornstein were finalists for the same award in 2010 for a series on the broken oversight of nurses
Weber joined ProPublica’s editing ranks in 2014. In the six years that followed, work she edited won virtually every significant honor in journalism. Among other standouts, this includes a series she co-edited on grave, systemic problems in the Navy that won the 2020 Pulitzer Prize for national reporting; reporting on family separations, which won the Peabody Award’s first ever Catalyst Award, a George Polk award and was a Pulitzer finalist; and a series on jailhouse informants that won a National Magazine Award. She also guided hallmark series on how the financial system punishes the working poor; the gutting of the workers’ comp system; the toxic effect of blood spatter forensics on the justice system; and the rampant waste and perverse incentives in health care.
At least 15 drug and medical-device companies have paid $6.5 billion since 2008 to settle accusations of marketing fraud or kickbacks, but none of the more than 75 doctors named as participants were sanctioned.
Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. had been accused of submitting false bills to federal and state health programs. An earlier ProPublica investigation found that the company had hired several nurses despite a history of problems.
Regional newspapers that analyzed ProPublica's Dollars for Docs data say drug company payments to physician speakers have declined in their states, suggesting that new restrictions and publicity are making an impact.
ProPublica's newly updated Dollars for Docs database offers a glimpse of what patients can expect in 2013, when all drug and medical-device companies must report to the federal government what they pay doctors to help market their products.
An update of ProPublica's Dollars for Docs database includes more than $760 million in payments from 12 pharmaceutical companies to physicians and other health-care providers for consulting, speaking, research and expenses.
As ProPublica gets ready to refresh its Dollars for Docs database listing payments from drug companies to hundreds of thousands of doctors, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America says paid physician speakers play a critical role in improving patient care.
Reacting to ProPublica's Dollars for Docs coverage, Stanford and other schools discipline doctors, rewrite policies and increase scrutiny of drug-industry ties.
In a response to a request from Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, 33 professional associations and health advocacy groups listed their payments from the pharmaceutical, medical device and insurance industries. They also detailed the relationships that the groups’ executives and board members had with the same companies.
The Heart Rhythm Society says the financial support it receives from drug and medical-device makers plays no role in its advocacy for certain treatments. Information sheets published by the group do not mention potential risks from implanted defibrillators or cardiac catheter ablation.
Professional groups like the Heart Rhythm Society write guidelines on treatments and the use of medical devices, but researchers say their acceptance of sponsorships and grants from drug and device makers poses a conflict of interest that many patients never consider.
Reporters Charles Ornstein and Tracy Weber sent the Heart Rhythm Society a set of questions about potential conflicts of interest regarding the group’s acceptance of drug and device industry marketing money. The responses below were provided by the group’s president, Dr. Douglas L. Packer, and president-elect, Dr. Bruce L. Wilkoff.
Sen. Charles Grassley asked 33 health organizations who their corporate backers are, and responses show that some get half their income from the medical industry. Critics say public disclosure of industry ties is needed.
ViiV Healthcare, which specializes in HIV medications, disclosed paying $3.4 million in speaking and consulting fees to doctors during the first three quarters of 2010. It becomes the eighth company in Dollars for Docs database.
The University of Colorado Denver and its affiliated teaching hospitals have launched an overhaul of conflict of interest policies after a ProPublica database revealed extensive ties between its faculty and pharmaceutical companies.
ProPublica has added another $13 million in payments to our Dollars for Docs database of drug-company spending on doctors and other health professionals. That brings the total to nearly $295 million.
Drug companies keep strict control of materials doctors use in paid presentations about pharmaceuticals. The companies say this ensures that speakers comply with U.S. FDA regulations.
Top U.S. medical schools and teaching hospitals are failing to adequately enforce policies that prohibit or restrict faculty physicians from being paid by drug companies to give promotional speeches about their products.
A new federal plan will require drug and medical device companies to report all payments to U.S. physicians in 2013. The danger? As Minnesota discovered, some information submitted may not be accurate.
Seven drug companies paid $7.1 million to 292 doctors who faced disciplinary action or other regulatory sanctions, ProPublica found. Several companies say they may take steps to tighten screening procedures for physicians who are paid as speakers or for other activities promoting prescription drugs.
Thank you for your interest in republishing this story. You are are free to republish it so long as you do the following:
You have to credit ProPublica and any co-reporting partners. In the byline, we prefer “Author Name, Publication(s).” At the top of the text of your story, include a line that reads: “This story was originally published by ProPublica.” You must link the word “ProPublica” to the original URL of the story.
If you’re republishing online, you must link to the URL of this story on propublica.org, include all of the links from our story, including our newsletter sign up language and link, and use our PixelPing tag.
If you use canonical metadata, please use the ProPublica URL. For more information about canonical metadata, refer to this Google SEO link.
You can’t edit our material, except to reflect relative changes in time, location and editorial style. (For example, “yesterday” can be changed to “last week,” and “Portland, Ore.” to “Portland” or “here.”)
You cannot republish our photographs or illustrations without specific permission. Please contact [email protected].
It’s okay to put our stories on pages with ads, but not ads specifically sold against our stories. You can’t state or imply that donations to your organization support ProPublica’s work.
You can’t sell our material separately or syndicate it. This includes publishing or syndicating our work on platforms or apps such as Apple News, Google News, etc.
You can’t republish our material wholesale, or automatically; you need to select stories to be republished individually. (To inquire about syndication or licensing opportunities, contact [email protected].)
You can’t use our work to populate a website designed to improve rankings on search engines or solely to gain revenue from network-based advertisements.
We do not generally permit translation of our stories into another language.
Any website our stories appear on must include a prominent and effective way to contact you.
If you share republished stories on social media, we’d appreciate being tagged in your posts. We have official accounts for ProPublica on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.
Copy and paste the following into your page to republish:
