Great UM change in Privacy

Submitted by StephenRKass on

It was fascinating to learn last week that Denard had a staph infection early in the season. The staff did a great job of keeping this information private. I don't recall even a hint of this in any media report on the nature of his bandages. Hoke commented that Denard had a "boo-boo," which I interpreted as a minor scrape or bruise or abrasion.

Even more interesting is that Kovacs didn't even know Denard had a staph infection. Martin knew that much, but not that Denard was hospitalized. This information apparently wasn't shared widely on the team!

This reflects great unity among the football staff, in the athletic administration, and at UofM hospitals. They worked together to keep this information private, and not to leak it to anyone who didn't need to know (including the team!!!)

While we as fans want to know every tidbit possible, I completely support and applaud this change in privacy. It was no one's business what was happening with Denard. It was a strategic advantage for other teams NOT to know that he was close to not playing. Worse, if Sparty had known, they probably would have targeted Denard's arm for injury. I respect Hoke for maintaining privacy and confidentiality where appropriate.

On the other hand, I absolutely love the transparency about the team, and the access to information. For me, this is best reflected by the OC & DC pressers weekly during the season. I find what Borges & Mattison have to say fascinating, and actually more interesting than Hoke's press conferences. These guys are actually helping teach me more about football.

I think that Hoke has a decent relationship with the press and the public. He also has a great understanding of what should be kept quiet, and what can be public. However, this isn't only Hoke.

The lack of any leaks speak to a much greater unity among the athletic administration, the football coaching staff, and the team itself. Sadly, I cynically believe that someone would have leaked this kind of info (about Denard) under the prior coaching staff. Regardless, I am glad that the current climate promotes a healthy culture of silence where needed, and an openness to sharing more information, where appropriate.

J.Swift

December 12th, 2011 at 11:24 AM ^

Here's a contrarian view.

PSU.  Keeping critical information secret works ok if the information is not hurtful to others, criminal in nature, morally reprehensible, etc. etc. 

The danger of organizational secrecy becoming an institutional habit is real.

What do you think?

StephenRKass

December 12th, 2011 at 11:33 AM ^

Actually, reading about PSU and then reading about Denard and the fact Kovacs didn't know anything brought the whole thing to my mind.

I close my OP saying I am glad that the current climate promotes a healthy culture of silence where needed, and an openness to sharing more information, where appropriate. The point I was making is that there is a time for privacy, and a time to watch out for organizational secrecy. In regards to PSU, they failed to discern the difference. I, like all Michigan fans, hope that Hoke and Michigan always gets it right.

Section 1

December 12th, 2011 at 11:36 AM ^

we have to give Hoke and the staff high marks for execution.

There is recent precedent, however.  Lloyd Carr and his staff successfully concealed the nature of Chad Henne's injured shoulder in late '07, even though he was obviously injured.  Hello, Camp Randall.

And Rich Rodriguez and his staff successfully concealed the exact nature of Denard's various injuries in 2010, as well as others, like Martin.  We knew they were injured (as we could see the bandage on Denard's arm this year); we just didn't have any idea how bad it was.

 

Sadly, I cynically believe that someone would have leaked this kind of info (about Denard) under the prior coaching staff. 

 

Some of the worst breaches in injury-security came from players in 2009 and 2010, although they were obvious kinds of gabbing on Twitter. I actually think the newfangled Twitter problems came to an end before the end of Rodriguez's tenure.

I do think that there are two things that make the Hoke/media relation look so wonderful.  One is that Hoke's predecssor was treated so outrageously bad.  By comparsion, the Hoke relations look fantastic.

The other thing is that at least one local paper pretty clearly sees it as being in its interest to portray Hoke as superior in all possible respects to his predecessor, whom the paper took an active interest in ousting.  The paper's lead reporter summed it up.  "I just don't like the guy," he said.  It is a disputed quote, of course.  Somebody is lying in that dispute.  Either Michael Rosenberg, or Jim Brandstatter.  The room at the Football Bust might not be big enough to hold them both.

Section 1

December 12th, 2011 at 12:00 PM ^

But if that were the case, we might never hear about any injury or health care offered to any player.

Has anybody ever heard of a college coach -- football, basketball, baseball, soccer, field hockey, curling -- decline to answer a question about an athlete's condition based on HIPAA compliance?  Ever?  Even once?

ChiBlueBoy

December 12th, 2011 at 12:06 PM ^

Very early on when HIPAA reg's first came out, I saw a couple cases where coaches refused to answer questions re: a player's health based on HIPAA. Of course, HIPAA only applies to "Covered Entities," i.e., healthcare providers, payors and "clearinghouses" (don't ask, not that interesting, not relevant to our conversation). HIPAA does not cover coaches, though FERPA would.

CRex

December 12th, 2011 at 12:47 PM ^

It all depends where the player is going for treatment (and who is signing the paycheck of the team's medical staff).  If a player is going to the U hospital for treatment then HIPAA applies.  Also of the team doctor is joint appointed to the medical school (or even a non faculty employee of the U's health system) then HIPAA also applies.  

So coaches can actually be correct to cite HIPAA.  If the player is treated by the doctor and then the player approaches the coach reading his medical record, it is supposed to stop there.  As in Person X said Y can see his record, but should not distribute it.  So if you're Belichek or whatever and love to hide injuries, you can use HIPAA as that kind of excuse.  

 

MGoSoftball

December 12th, 2011 at 1:05 PM ^

can also be invoked by the person receiving treatment.  Any person (player, coach, fan) can request that all relevant information be withheld.  So even Hoke and staff would not be allowed to the data if Denard wanted regardless of who pays the bill.

HIPPA covers everyone in all cases.  HIPPA even requries a signature so send a patient file to another doctor for referal or second opinion.

I do not need to know anything about a player's health or why (s)he did or did not play.  I certainly WANT to know to enhance my fan experience.

Good for the coaches.

ChiBlueBoy

December 12th, 2011 at 2:24 PM ^

A physician or other health care provider can send a file to another physician for treatment purposes without an authorization or consent. The only requirement limiting it is that the provider give the patient a Notice of Privacy Practices.

ChiBlueBoy

December 12th, 2011 at 2:22 PM ^

If the player is going to UM hospital, HIPAA covers the hospital. The hospital cannot share the information with the coach unless the player agrees to the disclosure. Only disclosures for payment, treatment or healthcare operations are generally allowed (with a number of other exceptions), and giving information to the coach would not apply. Generally, the hospital is a different entity than the school, and even if it isn't, it would be a "hybrid" entity and the hospital would be treated as though a separate entity. In almost no case would the coach or team be a covered entity, and therefore HIPAA would not apply. The only exception would be if the hospital was part of the same entity as the university and out of complete stupidity the school did not declare itself a hybrid entity. UM isn't stupid.

ChiBlueBoy

December 12th, 2011 at 12:04 PM ^

to the hospital and other providers of health care, and would keep them from disclosing. FERPA might also limit how much information is disclosed by the school. Obviously, however, coaches can and do report on the health of players, so they could have disclosed if they had wanted, and there's nothing limiting Denard from disclosing his health situation.

Mr. Robot

December 12th, 2011 at 12:09 PM ^

So now that we know Denard had a staph infection in his arm, do we know how much that impacted his throwing ability?

I have never had one, nor am I close to anybody who has, so I have no idea how painful it is or how dibilitating it may be. Is this a reasonable explaination for his early-season throwing regression followed by a post-Iowa return to form?

Raoul

December 12th, 2011 at 12:30 PM ^

See this annarbor.com article (which I previously linked to in another thread). The staph infection was serious enough that he had to be hospitalized for one night and nearly missed a game (Denard won't say which one, but the reporter speculates it was Minnesota). Also:

Robinson wouldn't acknowledge whether the injury affected his accuracy, but he did say there was some pain while throwing for two or three weeks.

. . .

Robinson said the infection bothered him for two or three weeks, and there was a concern at one point whether he'd even be able to take snaps in practice.

"There were times I couldn't take some, but I was OK," Robinson said. "(Center David) Molk eased the snap into my hands. I mean, he's one of the best centers in the country.

StateStreetBlue

December 12th, 2011 at 12:29 PM ^

Beside the exact location of the infection hurting like hell, the whole area around it also is very painful to touch and has a burning sensation.  Also, the infection normally comes with a mid to high fever ( I think mine was roughly 102/103) and flu like simptions, which kind of sinusoidal until you get the proper medication.  One hour I'd be fine, and then the next I'd have that high fever.

 

All I can say is when I had one on my hip, it hurt to even walk (and I was never hospitalized).  I would imagine this to very likely have affected Denard's throwing.

jblaze

December 12th, 2011 at 12:29 PM ^

I wonder if it's just because Michigan was winning, though. If we had lost a few games, would somebody (accidentally or on purpose) let it slip that Denard was so banged up?

LB

December 12th, 2011 at 12:34 PM ^

Of course, I suspect that is Hokespeak for anything that does not require an amputation. : )

I am happy that secrets can be maintained. How one compares that to what we think we know about the issue in Happy Valley is beyond me.

I just happen to have had an infection in my elbow. The doctor removed some fluid with a hypodermic, took one look and sent me to the hospital. They drained it, hooked up an IV of antibiotics and some cocktail that did not include scotch, and then sent me on my way. Other than being tender, (especially once the old skin on my elbow fell off due to the swelling). It didn't impact my life all that much - I couldn't rest it on the desk, which made typing a bit hard. I will tell you that I am really happy that I didn't have to throw anything or be hit while it was healing.

StephenRKass

December 12th, 2011 at 1:08 PM ^

I didn't mention it in the OP, but in his last presser, Hoke answered one question with "that's kinda of personal." (in ref to how he does polls.) He gave a vague answer (someone helps talk through it?) but no details. He gave a non-answer answer.

Hoke in general seems to to have perfected telling just enough that questions stop. With regards to Denard, he said, "he has a boo boo." He didn't say, "it's confidential," or "I can't comment because of HIPPAA." Either answer would guarantee that people would dig. Telling enough of the truth (in this case, "yes, something is wrong.") stops the line of inquiry. The genius is that in Hoke not making a big deal of it, (just a boo-boo,) the assumption is, no big deal, nothing to be concerned about. The actual reality (in this situation) is that there was something to be concerned about, but it best served Hoke to keep this under wraps.

The sense that Hoke is open, that he has nothing to hide, and that anything he doesn't share is either personal or confidential works very well with the press.

Actually, sharing lots and lots of info (Hoke, Borges, & Mattison all have pressers, players have pressers, there is a flood of info coming out) means it is less noticed that NOT EVERYTHING is publicized. Fort Schembechler didn't make people happy. Having full access under RR didn't make people happy. Hoke has found his own way, and I like it.

Section 1

December 12th, 2011 at 1:15 PM ^

Didn't MGoBlog feature a front-page story the first time we saw practice film with a big bandage on Denard's arm?  And wasn't it acknowledged at that time as an abcess, which had clearly been the subject of some kind of surgical procedure?

"Yes" is the answer to both; so I just don't see how this was any sort of brilliant maneuver on the part of Hoke.  In fact, the MGoBoard was rife with rumors about MRSA infections.

http://mgoblog.com/content/denards-elbow-bandaged 

Anybody reading the MGoBoard at the time, and following up with Hoke could have asked, "Coach Hoke; that large bandage on Denard's arm -- did he have surgery?  The speculation on some of the message boards is that he's had an abcess with a complicating infection.  Is it a staph infection...?"

I don't know; maybe somebody did ask that question.  The better the questions, obviously, the harder it gets for Hoke. 

mgowill

December 12th, 2011 at 2:25 PM ^

Oh, I know the answer to this one -

Reporter: "Coach Hoke; that large bandage on Denard's arm -- did he have surgery?  The speculation on some of the message boards is that he's had an abcess with a complicating infection.  Is it a staph infection...?"

Hoke: "It's a boo-boo."

goblueritzy92

December 12th, 2011 at 1:55 PM ^

Kind of figured this earlier in the year when I was talking to an (unnamed) football player about the MSU game and I asked him if Denard was hurt. He looks at me and says "No and I wouldn't tell you if he was". End of conversation. Guess Hoke has taught them well.

jka347

December 12th, 2011 at 2:20 PM ^

3 different threads that I have browsed today have StephenRKass saying something like "I cynically believe..."  Just thought this was kinda funny.  Jalen Rose, then NCAA sanctions on Ohio, then last year's lack of privacy in the football staff.  StephenRCynic!

StephenRKass

December 12th, 2011 at 4:18 PM ^

Astute Observation and great memory. And yes, I'm sometimes cynical. In fact, years ago, I intended to use "cynic" as part of my mgo-name. This didn't happen, obviously enough.

Let me ask you . . . would you not also be cynical on those topics:  expecting an honest response from Jalen about the Xavier-Cincinnati Melee, expecting there to be any teeth in NCAA sanctions of Ohio, and expecting staff and others in last year's campaign (players on the team!) to keep quiet about Denard's staph infection.

I guess I should be more hopeful and positive, but it is hard for me to expect a lot in these three areas. Yes, StephenRCynic indeed!

jka347

December 13th, 2011 at 10:21 AM ^

I can't say I disagree with your cynicism of the latter two.  However, I think Jalen would probably give a pretty honest answer as to how he feels about the melee and how it reflects upon the African-American community.  He certainly hasn't seemed afraid to speak his mind in the past!  Whether or not he will address it at all though, who knows.

Sugaloaf

December 12th, 2011 at 5:44 PM ^

Yeah, love these too.

 

Also big props to Heiko and Brian for feeding them intelligent football questions that we are all genuinely interested in.  Not just fluff looking for blurbs like the major news outlets.