Wash. Times disavows “an” op-ed by Medicaid fraudster -- in fact, it ran 13

Written by Terry Krepel

Published

In January, we detailed how The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by Gilbert Ross, medical director of the American Council on Science and Health, on the issue of reimported drugs. The Journal didn't mention, however, that Ross had been convicted of Medicaid fraud, for which he served nearly four years in prison and lost his license to practice medicine.

Well, Ross has struck again -- this time at The Washington Times, which published a March 4 op-ed defending the drug Avandia. (Are you getting the feeling that Ross' group is funded by the pharmaceutical industry? You would be correct.)

The Times has now issued a disavowal, also appended to the top of Ross' column:

On March, 4 2010, The Washington Times ran an oped by Dr. Gilbert Ross, medical director of the American Council on Science and Health, entitled “When senators play doctor.” Dr. Ross has written for USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Times previously. Dr. Ross did not disclose to the Times that he had been convicted of Medicaid fraud and, for a period of years, lost his license to practice medicine. Had the Times known these facts, we would not have run the article.

That's a good start. The problem for the Times is that it didn't make a one-time error. The March 4 op-ed is the sixth it has published in the past two years -- the others were on March 5, 2008, April 24, 2008, September 14, 2008, January 18, 2009, and March 13, 2009. A search of Nexis uncovered a total of 13 op-eds by Ross (including a book review) published by the Times since 1998.

Seems like the Times should be apologizing for publishing any op-ed by Ross, not just the most recent one.

The Times seems to be offering something of a defense by noting that “Dr. Ross has written for USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Times previously.” Indeed, USA Today has published Ross' writings; a search in Nexis for Ross' work at the Los Angeles Times yielded only letters to the editor and an article in which he was quoted. Seems like an apology is in order from USA Today as well (we're inclined to let the Los Angeles Times off with a warning -- a letter to the editor is not the same thing as an op-ed).

The Journal, meanwhile, could take a cue from The Washington Times' (albeit incomplete) disavowal -- even though two months has passed since Ross' op-ed appeared there, we found no evidence that the Journal has alerted its readers to his background.

P.S. It's worth noting that on the board of trustees for Ross' group is none other than Betsy McCaughey, who Media Matters recently named Health Care Misinformer of the Year. Why are we not surprised?