Official Channels & Protocol


Back in March I had someone online comment about how one of the world’s largest financial rating organization was now offering a service to assist medical providers rate the adherence of their patient population to their medications. The concept was intriguing and alarming and I used the ‘contact us for more information’ portion of their website, requesting information.  Straight up I said I was looking for information to write a blog on the topic.

The contact person and I played phone tag and email tag back and forth from March until July for a variety of legit reasons on my part.  When we finally spoke by phone in July he was great, informative, and helped to answer my questions as to how this very large company, which normally rates financial risk could be in the medical risk market.  It was explained to me that this was more a service of providing the analytics for a provider, such as Medicare, to use to assess risk and they do not maintain medical databases.  What was done with that information was unclear to him after the programs are delivered to their client.

I wrote the blog, allowed this nice person to read it and he requested his name be removed because it wasn’t his official position to comment.  I complied with his wishes, the article posted with just a few of his quotes attributed to ‘a person at’ and then the next day I received a not so kindly worded email from the PR firm for the financial giant, demanding to know the name of the person I spoke with.  I offered them that information after first offering to allow my contact to do it for himself.  The PR person curtly pointed out I had not followed official procedures and had somehow violated something with their protocols.  Huh?

Then today, in another email follow-up from a different suit at the parent company, I was told I need to edit the blog, take all of the quotes out since this person was not authorized to speak for their company, there are strict rules and protocol to follow, and that I was to send them a copy of the revised article before it was published.   Again, huh?  Is that really how this works? And BTW, it was already published and you know what they say about the internet – once it is out there, it never can really go away.

If you read my blog (as of now it is still posted)  you will find that there is actually little focus on this leader in the financial rating industry  except using a simplified explanation of their medical adherence analytics system as the springboard for the rest of my article, focusing on the larger problem of adherence and its cost to our medical system in the US. If I were them I would have said no harm, no foul and let it be, but of course I am not this behemoth corporation.

At this point I am even more curious as to what medical adherence scoring service really offers if it has raised such interest in a simple MS patient blog.  If anyone can offer insight, I would love to hear it.  That is unless you happen to work for FICO,  because I wouldn’t want to violate any more protocols.


As always,








I love to hear your thoughts - feel free to leave a comment.