Two federal agencies have acknowledged that they are investigating whether the nation’s top credit rating companies committed fraud in the run-up to the financial crisis. 

Officials from the Securities and Exchange Commission’s enforcement division and the U.S. Justice Department said at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday that the raters are under examination for awarding inflated grades to toxic investments at the center of the financial crisis. The raters are already facing investigations from state attorneys general in California, Ohio and Connecticut.

But the federal officials admitted that their examinations face an uphill battle. Robert Khuzami, director of the SEC division, said it “can be difficult to show” the raters knowingly issued bogus ratings—the standard for fraud. Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer noted that the raters also enjoy protections from the First Amendment. The raters argue that their ratings are merely opinions, protected by the constitutional right to free speech.

The Investigative Fund recently published a three-part series detailing the raters’ use of the First Amendment as a shield against oversight from the SEC, Congress and the courts. With help from the First Amendment, the series reported, the raters remain undefeated in court.

An interesting recent piece in the Chicago Reader details Mother Jones' efforts to create an ongoing reporting collaborative that will collectively cover climate change. Salon, Slate, The Atlantic and others are considering playing along.

It's a noble and worthy effort. In a media world with so few resources and such risk of redundancy, these types of collaborations will help forge a new future for enterprise and investigative reporting.

It’s a future we, in our own ways, are helping shape too. A few examples:

 • Just last week we published our second of two stories about health IT in conjunction with Chuck Lewis’ Investigative Reporting Workshop. The first was about the gold-rush mentality that's been fueled by the $45 billion of stimulus money set aside to promote the transition to electronic medical records.

• A few weeks ago, we worked with the Center for Public Integrity on a story that exposed how the soda lobby stifled a proposed tax on sugary drinks at the federal level and is now fighting similar efforts at the state level.

• Earlier this fall we undertook a distributed-research project with LittleSis.org to map connections between health care lobbyists and members of Congress.

• When we launched the I-Fund (in the summer), we co-published a few pieces with ProPublica about DNA testing (one of the stories detailed how some victims of sexual assault are being asked to pay for their rape kits).

 • And we’ve undertaken a semester-long collaboration with Columbia University’s Stabile Center for Investigative Reporting. Stay tuned -- the first piece is coming soon.

As you can see, our doors are wide open. If you or your organization have an idea about how we can work together, contact me (npenniman [at] huffpostfund [dot] org) or Lawrence Roberts (lroberts [at] huffpostfund [dot] org).

Our senior investigative reporter, Fred Schulte, appeared on NPR to discuss the digitizing of medical records with Weekend Edition's Scott Simon, detailing how major technology firms are competing to win contracts. As Schulte explained:

There's a company that has a Cash for Clunkers-inspired program where if you turn in your old equipment, they'll give you a discount on a new one. There's companies that are offering doctors interest free loans if they buy, and you don't have to pay back any of the money until you get your check from the government. There's a stimulus tour - it's like a Iraq tour going around the country - the big bus convening doctors in groups and trying to sell them on the benefits of buying this equipment.

Listen to the full interview below.

One of the big questions in the debate over the future of journalism is whether the Internet can foster a new alliance between professional reporters and citizens who have a high interest or expertise in a particular topic.

Here at the Huffington Post Investigative Fund, we’re seeing signs that the answer is yes.

Several weeks ago, as one of our first investigative projects, we set out to explore how insurance companies decide which claims to approve or deny. Regulators, lawmakers and policy makers seem to be in the dark about that important aspect of the health care system, since insurance companies generally are not required to disclose their rules, methods or records about claims.

Investigative Fund reporter Danielle Ivory wrote about this lack of available data and invited citizen journalists to help us investigate. Hundreds of people volunteered. And they’ve already helped us extend and deepen our journalism.

Many have volunteered personal tales about their dealings with insurers. Others are health professionals and insurance insiders with direct experience in the claims process.

Some readers pointed us to patterns of inequity in the system. That led us to focus on two aspects of the health claims system — the growing antagonism between many therapists and insurers over mental health benefits, and how victims of sexual assault can get entangled in the system.

Says Ivory: “I never expected such an extraordinary response. The readers obviously took the assignment very seriously. We started to notice small-scale patterns right away. It’s invaluable to have such an enthusiastic community helping us out.”

Ivory’sarticle about a woman who was raped, took anti-HIV drugs as a preventative measure and then could not get coverage became a national phenomenon. Aside from thousands of commenters and bloggers fueling robust debate around the Web, the victim also appeared on CNN and Headline News. Our accompanying mini-documentary on mental health benefits has been viewed by thousands of people on YouTube.

Stay tuned for more coverage. We have several teams of citizen journalists digging through data and documents and helping us research other ideas that emerged from the larger group.

Aside from story leads, we’ve been receiving many individual tales that taken together may illustrate some of the gaps and weaknesses in the current health care system.

For example...

Shirley of Houston, now posted overseas, exposed a personal struggle with her newborn child. Because the child was born with some minor birth defects on her feet and hands, the family's health insurance provider refused coverage. The defects, they said, were a pre-existing condition:

On the mental health front, Charlene Melton of Morrison, Ill., suffered from minor depression after losing her father. She since has been denied health insurance consistently. The reason, she was told, is that she was previously treated for a mental health condition:

A Chicago nurse, who wants to be known only by her initials, A. G., told another story about the consequences of seeking therapy:

And finally, a woman from Miami, Fla., who also wished to remain anonymous for fear of “insurance company retribution” tells the all-too-persuasive story of patients running into trouble when filing claims for expensive cancer tests and treatments. After being denied treatment, her family appealed the claim and won but the delay was enough to do a lot of damage.

The Huffington Post Investigative Fund will continue to hold its magnifying glass close to health insurance companies. If you are an insurance insider — or a citizen who would like to join our team, submit a tip or suggest an idea — please fill out the form below. We look forward to hearing from you.