Ball maintains there's nothing nefarious about the group; it's just been hectic since he took the helm early this year, and he admits he's learning the ins and outs of the health-care industry in Utah, after years of focusing his attention on consumer issues regarding public utilities as leader of the Committee of Consumer Services. Instead, he says, he's bogged down with paperwork. The group must file a 990 form with the IRS by mid-May. And he's just beginning to learn who members are and what their concerns are regarding health care.

Still, others say they don't know what to think.

"We have a code of ethics that specifically prohibits what we would call a front group, which is what this sounds like," says Joan Mitchell, president of the Greater Salt Lake Chapter of the Public Relations Society of America. "It is not transparent who is backing it, who's funding it and what they want. You should be able to understand the motivations and truly communicate what you're trying to do honestly and in an above-board fashion," says Mitchell, who is not involved in any aspect of the task force's work. Not being transparent, she says, "is considered a deceptive practice."

Dee Brewer, director of public affairs and marketing for University Healthcare, hopes the coalition is just what it claims to be, a patient-advocate group. But it's hard to judge that if no one knows who's involved, he adds.

He also hopes such a group brings specifics, and not just anecdotes of patients' experiences, to the table. "What they need is not more anecdotes. When you are making public policy, you need to look at the population and do so with some precision. I hope that the coalition would be presenting data or survey information that is actionable for that task force."

Intermountain Healthcare is perhaps the group most curious about the coalition because of rumors that it was formed to oppose Intermountain — a charge Ball denies. "We are absolutely not an anti-IHC club."

Intermountain has been informed it's not welcome in the coalition. In a December letter, then-president Jeff Fox turned down Intermountain's request for information on how to join. "The genesis of the task force was to address legislative concerns regarding IHC's market dominance in Utah, the statutory definition of charitable care and other pertinent issues," Fox wrote. "IHC's membership in the Utah Healthcare Coalition could result in a chilling effect on consumers — including coalition members — being able to express the full range of their concerns to the task force. This runs counter to our mission of helping guide public input to the task force and possibly providing an ombudsman role in the future."

Ball says he can't answer questions about that; it happened before he took the organization's helm.

Thursday, in response to news stories, Intermountain CEO Bill Nelson sent an e-mail to Intermountain staffers. "Intermountain Healthcare employees should know that our organization has been completely open and transparent in all our dealings with the task force," he wrote. "We have fully disclosed financial information and any other data requested by the task force and by the firm it has hired to provide an unbiased study of Utah's health-care market."

The use of "front groups with secret supporters" is "deeply disappointing," he wrote.

Ball says he's a little nonplused by all the fuss: "It came out of the sun." The coalition is not actively raising funds, although it plans to launch a membership and funding drive sometime in the future. "Our main interest is to get consumers' views across."

As for an agenda, he says the group is more interested in providing information. The solution to a problem is not likely to come from the coalition because it is a diverse group and what works for one member might not be a good solution for another, he notes.

---

E-mail: lois@desnews.com