Contact

Questions about health information published on this site, corrections to factual content, or requests for clarification on a specific topic can be directed through the contact form or options verified below. The focus here is US national health — coverage spans conditions, systems, and decisions that affect people across all 50 states, though some pages note where state-level variation is significant enough to matter.

Service area covered

The editorial scope of this site is US national health information — the kind of reference material that holds across state lines, federal programs, and the patchwork of insurance frameworks that makes American healthcare simultaneously fascinating and exhausting to navigate. Content draws on named public sources: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and peer-reviewed public literature.

What falls outside scope: clinical advice, diagnosis support, insurance claim disputes, and anything requiring a licensed professional relationship. Those questions are genuinely important — they just belong somewhere else, with someone who can legally answer them. For topics requiring professional guidance, the how to get help for health page outlines the right channels.

What to include in your message

A message that gets a useful response is a specific one. The following breakdown covers the 4 most common contact reasons and what details move them forward fastest:

1. Factual correction — Name the page title, the specific claim in question, and the source that contradicts it. A named publication (journal, federal agency report, statute) is far more actionable than a general disagreement.

2. Citation request — If a statistic or claim appears without a source and that gap matters for your purposes, identify the page and the sentence. The editorial process aims to catch these before publication, but no system is airtight.

3. Topic suggestion — A brief description of the health topic, the specific question it addresses, and why existing coverage doesn't answer it. Broad requests ("write about heart disease") are harder to act on than focused ones ("there's no page explaining how the Medicare Part B premium income adjustment works for people who recently retired").

4. Accessibility or technical issue — Describe the problem, the device and browser if known, and the page where it occurred. Screen reader conflicts and mobile rendering issues are tracked separately from editorial feedback.

Response expectations

Editorial teams handling reference-grade health content are not a 24-hour hotline — and that's actually fine, because the questions that belong here aren't emergencies. Factual corrections and citation gaps are reviewed on a rolling basis, with most responses going out within 5 business days for clearly documented issues.

Topic suggestions take longer because they enter a content calendar that already has competing priorities. A suggestion that's specific, grounded in a real gap, and supported by a named public source stands a better chance of moving quickly than a general request.

Two scenarios where a response is unlikely: messages asking for personal health advice (see scope note above), and messages that dispute a fact without citing a named source. The second category is worth pausing on — "I don't think that's right" and "the NIH published data in 2022 showing a different figure" are very different messages, and only one of them is actionable.

There is no phone support for editorial inquiries. This is a deliberate choice, not an oversight — written records of corrections and sourcing discussions are part of how factual accuracy is maintained over time.

Additional contact options

For readers who prefer a structured path over a blank message box, 3 alternatives are worth knowing:

The FAQ page covers the questions that arrive most often — definitions, scope questions, how specific health topics connect to policy or coverage decisions. Before sending a message, it's worth checking whether the answer is already there. Not because sending a message is wrong, but because a good FAQ answer is faster than any inbox.

The how it works page explains the editorial and sourcing methodology behind content on this site. If a question is really about why something is covered a certain way — why a specific framing was chosen, why one source is cited over another — that page provides the structural answer.

Corrections with documented sources receive the most direct treatment in the editorial process. A message that arrives with a specific claim, a specific page, and a link to a named public document (a federal agency report, a peer-reviewed abstract, a statute from ecfr.gov or a state legislature's official site) can be reviewed, verified, and acted on without additional back-and-forth. That efficiency isn't a policy — it's just the practical reality of how fact-checking works when the documentation is already in hand.