Schwartz PRx

Social media for B-to-B health care companies: Is there value?

2010-01-29T19:11:19Z

There is tremendous buzz about using social media to promote all things consumer including health care treatments and diagnostics. But what if your company markets to hospital administrators and clinicians instead of patients? Does that mean there is no value for your company to engage in social media?

When thinking about how the medical community is using social media, the perception tends to be that social media sites like Facebook and YouTube are only used to target patients, however also present are influential medical organizations and health care companies targeting clinicians and hospital administrators. The Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) has a Facebook fan page that communicates updates on SIR's upcoming meetings, announces webinars and provides video clips of clinicians sharing their experiences using interventional radiology to treat patients. YouTube is also full of these types of videos designed for physicians to observe cutting-edge practices in surgery, diagnostics and other treatments.

With regards to targeting health care administrators, social media sites designed for professional networking--such as LinkedIn and Twitter--can be strategic venues for developing a presence for your brand. While LinkedIn is best known for providing individuals with a trusted network of business professionals to help them identify job opportunities, there is another component to LinkedIn that is conducive for helping to brand companies as key opinion leaders in their industries. With more than 55 million members including executives at every Fortune 500 company, LinkedIn provides a channel to get in front of key decision-makers in the health care business world.

Even better, it's very easy to begin building a corporate presence on LinkedIn. In minutes you can create a company profile that is essentially the same as the boilerplate section of a corporate website. Also simple to do is forming a LinkedIn group, a more interactive forum than a company profile that is designed to be a place for sharing industry and/or corporate news and allows members to begin discussions with one another. It is a great place to upload links to media coverage about your company as well as interesting articles about the industry.

One of the important choices when setting up a group is to either make it open to anyone who wants to join vs. invite-only. There are pros and cons to both options. If the group is going to be comprised of company executives who want to use it as a forum to share information between one another, then it would be best to set up the group as invite-only to prevent sharing information inadvertently with competitors who may unknowingly join a public group. If however, the number one goal of setting up the group is to elevate the company's brand to any and all business professionals, the public option will make it easier for more folks to join and would be the best choice. Also, it should be noted that if an inappropriate comment is posted, the group manager has the ability to delete the comment and/or subsequent comments in the discussion as well as remove "difficult" members from the group.

That said, it is important to remember that social media sites are not well suited to keeping information private. Anything you post to a LinkedIn group could be seen by clients, prospective clients and competitors. Social media sites such as Facebook and LinkedIn frequently change their privacy policies and settings. When changes are made they are not always transparently communicated to members.

If the idea of driving discussion seems too aggressive, there is still value in familiarizing yourself with outlets such as LinkedIn and Twitter. Like all communications campaigns, the key lies in finding outlets that reach your desired audience. Even if you're not ready to engage proactively, just listening to what business professionals in your industry are talking about can help inform how you go about reaching them. To this end, sites like Sermo are conducive to learning how physicians think about a particular topic. There are sponsorship opportunities available for companies to post questions and have access to the clinicians' answers, something that could be worthwhile if you are researching the best way to position a new product or relaunch an old one.

So the answer then is, yes, absolutely there is value for B-to-B health care companies to engage in social media, and we didn't even delve into opportunities on Twitter. Come back soon for a post dedicated to best practices on Twitter for health care companies with both B-to-B and B-to-C selling models.

Inspiration and Perspiration in PR

2010-01-27T14:21:54Z

Yesterday I met with an interesting company that was interviewing healthcare public relations agencies. They had developed a detailed set of criteria for the PR agency that they were going to select. This is not uncommon, in fact, it is de rigeur. In this case, management kept coming back to their desire to hire an agency that “thinks out of the box,” and is “highly creative.” Not the “normal type of healthcare or medical PR” agency.” Understandably they also placed a premium on results, with the goal of selecting the agency that could combine their intellectual and creative assets with a solid track record of delivering for their clients.

Our discussion made me think of Colleen, a senior account executive at Schwartz. For years Colleen and I have worked together on a non-branded campaign to heighten awareness of Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA). The target media for the campaign has always been consumer-type media of all kinds - daily newspapers, women’s books, men’s publications, family magazines, etc. - the hardest and most difficult coverage to land. We have been hugely successful in our campaign, due largely to an account team composed of people like Colleen.

Around three years ago (yes years!) Colleen first interested a senior editor at Self in writing a piece on OSA. This was a key outlet for us because women are gatekeepers to family health and our research had shown that spouses and significant others frequently “turned their husbands and boyfriends in” due to excessive snoring - a leading indicator of OSA. Colleen was thrilled since Self is a such a tough “get.” She sent information to the editor but the piece kept on getting pushed out. The editor left Self and Colleen had to start over again and again and again…Every time important new studies came out on OSA, Colleen would renew negotiations with a revolving cast of editors. As Ahab, it became her Moby Dick. Time passed but Colleen would not be deterred. Then one blessed day last month, Colleen arrived at our meeting breathless with the news that after getting a freelance writer interested in writing the story for Self and prodding her to conduct interviews, the piece was finally going to run in the January 2010 issue of Self. And you know what? It did. Here’s an abbreviated version:

What's really keeping you awake

So, what does any of this have to do with the company I met with yesterday? Like them, I believe that great healthcare PR people need to be creative and be willing to leave traditional ideas behind and think expansively and “out of the box.” Over the years on this campaign we had consistently provided the client with some really great, innovative concepts. BUT….and this is a big “but,” more than anything, the best PR people I know are tenacious, “never-say-die” advocates for their clients. I have always thought that great healthcare PR or PR of any kind actually combine a dose of healthy inspiration with a continuous dose of perspiration. While companies sometimes think that there must be a magic bullet or mysterious secret sauce to what we do, I disagree. It’s pretty simple if you think of it.

Creativity and brilliant strategy is essential to all effective PR.campaigns. We take great pride in our ideas here at Schwartz. But sometimes it is the sheer effort of a bright, energetic, tireless, undefeatable PR pro - like Colleen - that makes the difference. In PR as in life, there’s no real substitute for going the extra yard.

The Changing Media Landscape: What it Means for Healthcare Companies

2010-01-26T13:58:31Z

When you convene a group of leading healthcare journalists, in front of a room full of healthcare PR professionals, sometimes there's no telling what you might hear. Journalists and PR folk, especially healthcare PR agency specialists, have a bit of a love hate relationship. We both need each other, for different reasons of course, and in light of the different media world we live in today, it's more critical than ever that we best understand how we can help each other. As a PR practitioner, I'm most concerned with finding creative and impactful ways for my medical device, biotech and biopharmaceutical clients to get their message out to their key target audiences. The game has changed and in fact continues to change on what often seems like a minute-to-minute basis. OK, maybe I'm exaggerating but you get the point.

To that end, we prepared a special report with our takeaways from this session, thoughts on how the media environment is altering communications strategies and ideas on how healthcare companies can capture the right mix of influential mindshare. Is it shocking that healthcare journalists are busy (no), have fewer resources (no) and have less time to pursue feature-based stories (no)? How about the fact that several of the reporters we heard from have yet to jump on the social media bandwagon? Probably not shocking, but interesting, yes especially when the media organizations they write for are knee deep in trying to drive eyeballs to their respective Web sites via the multitude of social media tools and channels available. Check out the report and read on to uncover the good, bad and the ugly of what to expect in 2010. Feel free to opine on our blog with your thoughts and observations, we would love to hear from you.

New York Times Report on Radiation: Balanced or too Sensational?

2010-01-25T22:27:09Z

The January 24th edition of the Sunday New York Times ran a Page One Investigative report on the perils and dire consequences on the use of radiation in medical diagnostics and cancer therapies. The lengthy report, put together by an investigative team of six people, left the reader chilled and saddened for the families of the two patients whose experiences formed the substance of the vast majority of the Times’ reporting. Indeed they suffered greatly as a result of what the Times inferred was a result of a human error and/or faults in complex technology. Rare will be the reader who will put the piece down believing as much in the safety and efficacy of radiation as when they began reading.

Yet the Report was both disconcerting and troublesome to me. As a healthcare public relations professional, I have indeed represented companies who had developed both radiation diagnostics and various types of therapies, yet even so, I found I was not biased by my professional associations. What really was disturbing to me was this quote found in the 9th paragraph of the 4 full page article.

“Without a doubt, radiation saves countless lives, and serious accidents are rare.”

OK. I get that—and I believe it. For many years radiation based protocols have been the standard of care and indeed gold standard in more procedures than I have time to list here. And this knowledge, juxtaposed with the Times reporting of yesterday is totally perplexing to me. I feel that the Times reporting was both sensationalistic and severely unbalanced. If they were to use all of that hugely expensive space in the Sunday paper detailing the potentially dangerous applications of radiation, would not a great deal larger amount of space be required to tell the stories of just some of the “countless” number of lives that the Times says radiation therapy has saved. I don’t get it.

Of course medical error and improper use of new and different technologies are serious problems. They deserve to be covered and extensively reported on. But to run such an emotional and one-sided account as the Times did, disappoints me. Not only as a healthcare PR Pro, but also as an informed potential patient. I love the Times. It is my favorite newspaper and a ‘must-read’ every day. But in this case they fell far short of their usually high journalistic standards. And in doing so, carried out an injustice to their readers by painting a picture that only tells a small, small part of the story.

FDA Social Media Hearings: Day 2

2009-11-13T20:36:52Z

As two jam-packed days of testimony near a conclusion, one powerful theme continued to resonate from drug and device companies and associated vendors: If emergent FDA regulations on participation in social media are so onerous that they serve to deter drug and device makers from being in this arena, the commercial stage will be entirely left to unregulated entities including marketers of alternative health remedies, off-shore pharmacies peddling potentially counterfeit or unapproved therapies and a tidal wave of law firms provoking panic about branded Rx products in an effort to recruit vulnerable consumers for class action lawsuits. This result, it is argued, creates a vacuum that would leave the Internet the sole commercial province of companies whose messages and products aren't validated via clinical trials or accountable in any way to the FDA.

The Agency was repeatedly implored to collaboratively identify and establish responsible but practical, realistic ways to enable responsible industry participation in social media. Among the oft repeated suggestions was for FDA to recognize that regulations must be tailored to the unique technology attributes of social media channels and tools, and mindful of the staggering volume of content generated every second.
Vehemently crusading against allowing industry to more easily participate in social media was a spokesman from Consumer's Union, who warned FDA to not repeat what he asserted has been the dire consequence of DTC advertising in traditional media. The Internet, the spokesman warned, only offers more opportunity for deceptive and sinister marketing practices by an industry that he apparently believes is not to be trusted.

Social media, industry argued, could actually help FDA better achieve its public health and safety mission with respect to effective communication with the public. Current regulations mandating comprehensive detail of all labeling and safety information, regardless of format, it was stated, result in a blur of fine print or voice-over garble that nobody can read, hear or understand. It was argued that these regulations serve as more of a legal mandate than an effective communications mandate.

Through Its interactive, linking, searching and click-through capabilities, industry advocates contended, social media offers tools and formats that could be mobilized by companies and FDA alike to establish a new paradigm for communicating accurate and understandable health information in a simpler and more accessible way to the public.

Many terrific, specific suggestions were illustrated. One can only hope the FDA was truly listening.

Adverse Event Reporting Commentary Leads Day 2 of FDA Social Media Hearings: MedWatch a Focal Point

2009-11-13T15:06:32Z

From Jim Weinrebe, live from the hearings:

Look for MedWatch to become an increasingly "go to' website for consumers experiencing problems they believe are associated with their prescription therapies.

We're barely 30 minutes into the morning's agenda on what Internet regulations should exist for adverse event reporting, and two speakers have already spotlighted the need to make the MedWatch site more consumer-friendly and accessible. One speaker represented Consumer's Union, and the other was a woman whose husband commited suicide after taking anti-depressants that were associated with the potential for suicidal tendencies.

Both speakers urged FDA to actively promote the MedWatch site to consumers, with one noting that most consumers aren't even aware of its existence and what it's used for. Promotion of MedWatch should be supplemented by modifying its language and process to facilitate easier use by consumers in the reporting of adverse events, the speakers both noted.

The Consumer Union spokesperson stated that manufacturers should be required to post prominent links on any website not only specific to a branded drug, but also non-branded disease awareness sites controlled by the company and even third party group websites of which the manufacturer is a substantial sponsor.

Looking down the road, highlighting MedWatch and facilitating links to the site appear to be a likely point of consensus among all parties. It makes a ton of sense from both a public health and industry reporting burden perspective. More to come.

FDA Social Media Hearings Part Deux: TO MONITOR OR NOT TO MONITOR? AND WHAT'S UP WITH GOOGLE?

2009-11-13T02:44:31Z

One of the most strongly, consistently stated tenets about social media is that if a company does nothing else, it should at least actively "listen." But for regulated drug and device companies, what if listening and monitoring yields mountains of hard to vet, potentially adverse event information that must be reported? Or uncontrolled consumer discussion and posting of off-label use of regulated drugs and devices for which a manufacturer could theoretically be held accountable?

If comments from presenters and questions from FDA at today's hearings are any indication, there will be a glacier-like but inevitable move toward policy that codifies the "safety" of active listening and monitoring without a corresponding and untenable burden of accountability for Internet "policing" beyond what a manufacturer has created or sponsored.

There were several suggestions for FDA to define what could be constituted as "best effort" for monitoring and reporting. What will that be? Stay tuned but don't hold your breath.

Similarly, industry presenters repeatedly recommended prominent use of links within manufacturer-controlled content to the FDA web site where product-specific safety and labeling information resides, and also to the MedWatch site where adverse events can be officially reported.

It was abundantly clear that industry -- not FDA -- will lead the regulators to viable solutions.

Meanwhile, wrapping up the day was Google, which in a remarkable display of audacity didn't utter a peep about SideWiki. Go figure. Good thing for Google it was the end of a long day and people were in no mood to linger and interrogate.

Commentary on FDA Hearings on Social Media

2009-11-12T18:14:22Z

From Jim Weinrebe, EVP at Schwartz Communications, live from the FDA open hearings on use of the Internet and Social Media Tools in Promotion of FDA-Regulated Products:

Four hours of testimony has just concluded, with statements from product manufacturers and their trade associations, communication firms, lawyers and non-profits and health advocates. As suggestion after suggestion piled up as to what industry and FDA can or should do to find an acceptable middle ground between industry participation in social media and realistic regulatory requirements for monitoring of and accountability for correcting inaccurate information, one fundamental question loomed un-stated. That is, until the very end of the morning session: How can an already capacity-constrained FDA that struggles to expedite its current mandate possibly find the organizational funds and staffing to take on all the activities associated with social media monitoring and policing? The firm recommendation from Diana Zuckerman, representative of the National Research Center for Women and families and a harsh industry critic, is to institute user fees for that very purpose. A formal proposal toward that end is pending, according to Zuckerman, who also "outed" several product brands and companies for Internet communication that she alleged was lack of compliance with existing requirements for risk disclosure. Certainly a wake-up call and provocative way to end the morning.

All Eyes on the FDA

2009-11-10T22:35:33Z

For healthcare PR executives, all eyes will be on the FDA later this week with its first public hearing focused on social media. Schwartz’s Executive Vice President Jim Weinrebe and Vice President Jayme Maniatis will be attending the two day public hearing on November 12 and 13 and will report back on key findings.

Check back later this for our expert commentary and top takeaways from the proceedings.

Should be an exciting two days in Washington D.C. and the results will have tremendous implications for all healthcare PR practitioners. Stay tuned!

Social Media Changing Landscape in Crisis Communications Planning

2009-11-03T14:32:14Z

Jim Weinrebe presented his perspective on the role social media is playing in crisis communications management for biotech, life science and pharmaceutical companies at the Publicity Club of New England's "Crisis Communications Preparedness" program held at Schwartz Communications.

Jim, along with his fellow panelists, weighed in on the need to plan, plan, and then plan some more as it's still at the root of any good crisis communications or reputation management plan for healthcare PR. Simply put, you can't be too careful, or too prepared in today's digital media age. It's not so much that many of the fundamentals have changed but that the SPEED, unbiquity of communication and new product applications in social media, with Google Sidewiki offered as just one recent example, have the potential to outpace the planning capabilities of some of even the most seasoned practitioners.

What's very different today in healthcare, according to Jim, is diminished ability of healthcare prescription product manufacturers to control, manage or even respond to messages that are swirling around them in the social media universe. With the prolific growth in use of Twitter, blogs, Facebook, YouTube, Flickr and other channels, social media content is not only broadly influencing people online, but also becoming a feeding ground for resource-constrained traditional media outlets that are constantly seeking audience generated content to embellish their reporting. The news vetting bar has never been set so low for provocative content that can get instantly posted and then picked up by influential traditional broadcast and print outlets in the blink of an eye.

While one of the fundamental rules for participation in social media is to actively listen, Jim also noted that even this basic aspect of social media etiquette poses difficult challenges for healthcare prescription product manufacturers, who could be accountable to the FDA for reporting instances of adverse events that have been identified through social media monitoring. It was noted that the industry is seeking clarity from the FDA on these and other issues related to social media, which could be at least partially forthcoming in pending public hearings on this topic in mid-November. Until such guidance is established, Weinrebe noted, prescription healthcare product manufacturer participation in social media will be very modest, and for the most part resembling more of a web 1.0 than a web 2.0 format. Meanwhile, Weinrebe said that social media has more potential to create or accelerate crisis for healthcare prescription product manufacturers. Exceptions in healthcare cited by Weinrebe were organizations like the Centers for Disease Control and American Red Cross, and even individual hospitals, who have employed sophisticated uses of social media to help effectively manage and communicate messages during public health emergencies and crises.

Jim noted that in regulated industries, such as healthcare and finance, there is still a lot of work to be done in educating senior management about the need to apply authenticity in tone to social media communications, even if the communications are nothing more than stand-by statements or simple acknowledgment that a problem has occurred. Jim counseled attendees to consider social media monitoring tools as a core part of an effective public relations strategy, while at the same noting that many healthcare product manufacturers need more guidance on adverse events reporting before even that approach can be robustly implemented.

While the healthcare industry waits with suspense for the outcomes of the FDA hearings on social media, Jim noted that clarity will not be achieved in the short term, that the deliberations will continue well into 2010 and that even by that point and beyond, a certain degree of ambiguity may still be desired by regulatory agencies as a means for cultivating preemptive manufacturer caution.

Building An Effective Personal Brand to Succeed in Public Relations

2009-10-20T17:04:00Z

Last week, I had the opportunity to speak at a panel discussion at Northeastern University, "It's Time To Brand Yourself" sponsored by the Boston Alumni Networking Exchange, the College of Professional Studies and the Communications Alumni Network. The discussion, moderated by Dr. Carl Zangerl, College of Professional Studies, Northeastern University, focused on a topic that's near and dear to all communications professionals - personal brand building.

I was joined by Michael Armini, vice president of marketing and communications at Northeastern University, Ted Chaloner, president of Chaloner Associates and Lauren Libitz, president of the Yankee Chapter of the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC). It was a fantastic line-up and each panelist brought a unique and interesting perspective to the more than 70 attendees who showed up for the program. With terrific questions and comments from the studio audience, my fellow panelists and I opined on the current job outlook for communications and public relations professionals, the concept of personal branding, the importance of networking and the different social media tools available including Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook, to create and promote a personal brand.

Whether you are currently employed or on the hunt, establishing a personal brand is important and something that bears relevance and utility to both an employee and a job seeker. The whole idea of a personal brand certainly isn't new but with the advent and popularity of social media tools it's quickly become a key buzz word in a challenging economic environment. I think building a personal brand is very similar to building a brand, and a strategy, for a company. The same rules apply. All the tools in the world won't do you any good unless you have a clear, consistent and differentiating vision to communicate. Further, coming up with the vision is just the first part of the challenge, the second part is figuring out which social media tools to employ. There are so many out there and it's challenging to know which ones to dabble with but my recommendation is to try a few at a time. Start slow, get recommendations relevant to your industry and observe others before jumping in head first. And, just remember, keep your personal and professional brand separate !

Crisis Communications Guidance in Healthcare Public Relations

2009-10-20T16:16:08Z

Jim Weinrebe, executive vice president and leader in our healthcare public relations practice, will join several panelists on Monday, October 26 at Schwartz Communications for a Publicity Club of New England panel program to talk about crisis communications preparedness.

As much as we try to avoid them, crises are inevitable and usually strike at the most inopportune times. The emergence of social media alone has exponentially increased the urgency and need for being prepared. When the pressure is on, it is important to get the facts in order as quickly as possible before any public communication is disseminated and determine the key target audiences that need to be addressed. The pre-determined crisis communications team should be prepared to deliver relevant information in a timely and appropriate manner to minimize the rumor mill and restore order and/or confidence. It's absolutely critical to have a crisis communications team and protocol in place before an emergency or potentially controversial situation strikes.

Jim will be joined by several leading industry executives to discuss effective crisis communications protocol and offer insight into real world case study examples. More specifically, Jim will provide insight into managing a crisis in healthcare PR. Participants will walk away with an understanding of what works, and what doesn't, when under the gun and how to best prepare an effective crisis communications plan in a time of turmoil. To register for the program, please visit www.pubclub.org. Space is limited so please reserve your spot!

FDA Dips Toes into Vast Social Media Pool

2009-09-23T16:13:57Z

With many industry folks saying it’s about time, the FDA just announced that it’s holding a public hearing to discuss social media. For years and years, the FDA has not addressed Internet-specific marketing so this week’s news is a huge acknowledgement that the Internet, social media tools like podcasts, and micro-blogging sites such as Facebook and Twitter are changing the face of marketing and advertising.

The public hearing, scheduled for November 12 and 13 in Washington D.C., is open to all interested parties such as consumers, patients, caregivers, patient groups, manufacturers, healthcare professionals and marketing agencies to provide their comments of Internet promotion. Armed with this information, the FDA will then make policy decisions on the promotion of human and animal prescription drugs, biologics and medical devices using the Internet and social media tools.

As a healthcare PR agency, our clients grapple with these issues every day as they look for guidance on what is acceptable and what could potentially land them in hot water with the FDA. Take Twitter, for instance. With its popularity growing in leaps and bounds every day, companies want to join the bandwagon and reach legions of people, but what is acceptable to say? With Tweets limited to 140 characters, do companies need to ensure that they are providing a fair and balanced view of the product including side effects or contraindications? Is this possible in 140 characters or less? Do they have to resort to haiku?

Many of our medical PR clients have also started Facebook pages to push messages out to consumers, healthcare professionals as well as the community at large to engage them and interact with them to learn more about their experiences with our clients’ products. One of the biggest questions that regularly gets asked is what if someone posts a comment on the Wall about an off-label use or adverse reaction. Is the company obligated to notify the FDA and is there a timeframe where this must be done? This is another key question that the FDA will be likely looking to address.

As a healthcare PR agency, we are definitely more than interested in the public hearings and especially what happens as a result. I suspect that many of our clients will provide comments and ask questions about this important discussion that is finally being addressed by the FDA. It will be a long process though as written and electronic comments are being accepted until February 28, 2010. Stay tuned for updates!

The Politicians Should Hire a Healthcare PR Agency

2009-09-14T15:56:27Z

Every day now, ubiquitous across all types of media, both Democrats and Republicans are in full-throated discourse (a polite term) debating the future of America’s health care system. The discussion is decidedly unpolite, loud, passionate and to say the least, confusing. The Democrats, ardent supporters of major overhauls to our current healthcare system, have (to me anyway) yet to paint a cogent and articulate rationale for many of their proposals, and the Republicans, have fallen to pathetic imagery suggesting that our country’s senior citizens would be systematically denied life-saving care under measures advocated by the Democrats. How sad. But should we really be surprised?

Despite the assistance of world-class political consultants, communications pros, and talking head spinmeisters who are household names, both sides are grasping at straws in attempting to craft and then communicate simple, easy-to-understand messages that make real sense and resonate across political divides to the American people. I have to admit, that I am confused, and I deal in these issues almost every day. But again should this surprise us?

Think about it. Most of the hot button political issues of our time can be easily etched in the sharp contrasts of black and white. Go to war or not? Right to life or pro-choice? Gun control or not? Higher taxes or lower taxes? Soft on Crime? Hard on crime. The discussions surrounding these issues are easily framed and communicated. Why? Because they are simple. They are visceral in nature and professional political communicators have been easily able to manipulate the American public for decades now in driving home both their own positions and depositioning the competition with language and images that appeal to the lowest common denominator. Black and white stuff.

So, why are they having such a hard time with the healthcare discussion? Because the infrastructure, issues and care and cost basis of our healthcare system is, if nothing else, NOT simple. In fact, they are exceedingly complex. And almost incomprehensible to the average American. HMOs, PPOs, payors, caregivers, deductables, Medicaid, pre-existing conditions, wide variances in insurance coverage across economic and geographic stratas, medicare, co-pays, generics and on and on it goes. Whatever happened to the days when your own doctor came to your home with his little black bag? And then when you overlay the thicket of our current misunderstood system with new ideas and thinking, why it’s almost impossible to fully understand. It is exactly the complexity of all of this that has even the most experienced and savvy of the political PR pros scratching their heads---they’re not used to or capable of real substantive debate and discussion on complex issues. Give them the sizzle over the meat any day. You want to talk about capital punishment? Bring it on. Minimum wage? No problem. But the issues surrounding our healthcare system are deep and not easily simplified into sound bites.

So here is my suggestion. Democrats and Republicans alike should carefully consider retaining professional healthcare communicators in lieu of the political Lords of spin who are so obviously failing at convincing Americans on the merits of virtually anything at this point. Why? There are many fine healthcare and medical PR agencies across the country that are extremely adept at taking complex and sophisticated healthcare issues and translating them into simple, easy to understand messaging. These communications professionals have experience in representing virtually all of the players in the healthcare arena. Medical device companies with sophisticated technologies, consumer advocacy groups, pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, physician groups, hospitals, research organizations and more. They are familiar with working in the regulated environment of our healthcare system. They are smart enough to realize that in America’s current healthcare system or even in a utopian one of the future, nothing is black and white. That there are nuances and shades of gray in most everything. Healthcare PR professionals would also not come at the communications challenge from a political perspective, but rather from an overall systemic viewpoint, in which the biggest challenge is education. And lastly, medical and healthcare pros realize that the biggest ally they could have in promoting a position is a fully informed and educated American public, not one kept in the dark by innuendo, negative images, and distortion of the facts.

Medical PR Report: ESC 2009

2009-09-10T13:17:40Z

As part of our role in healthcare PR, we frequently attend scientific conferences to help clients launch products and highlight new clinical research. Last week, I was fortunate to witness the largest cardiovascular meeting in the world, the European Society of Cardiology’s (ESC) annual congress in Barcelona, Spain. The Congress attracts more than 400 reporters to cover news and research from the conference.

A few headlines from the show:

A Focus on Prevention: ESC featured more than 25 scientific sessions on prevention, including the impact of smoking and obesity on cardiovascular health. The theme aligns with the increasing support—from policy makers and health providers—for identifying and treating disease earlier to help improve outcomes and reduce the cost of healthcare. Ed Susman, a prominent medical reporter covering nearly every major scientific conference, features a review of the opening ceremonies and its focus on prevention here.

The hot line research: The hot line research sessions typically attract the most attention from clinicians and the media. This year, results from RE-LY, PLATO and MADIT-CRT were the highlights. Check out this MedPage Today video for a wrap-up about on the clinical implications of the studies.

Revisiting Drug-Eluting Stent Safety: Three years ago at ESC, two hot line sessions focused on first generation drug-eluting stents. New research there sparked a debate about the safety of the devices, raising questions about their ability to increase the risk of death. This year’s conference provided an update on emerging clinical evidence about DES safety, including a review of a large Swedish registry that analyzed nearly 50,000 patients who received stents. The take-away: safety data released since 2006 has reassured the majority of clinicians that DES are safe and effective.

The promise of genetics: The pursuit of personalized medicine continues. The Congress held several sessions featuring the topics of genetic screening and emerging research on cardiovascular-related genetics.

With ESC 2009 complete, we are looking forward to the next major cardiovascular show—the 2009 AHA Scientific Sessions.