Healthcare PR Blog

How Healthcare PR People Can Manage Clinical Trial Crises

Are you or your healthcare PR firm prepared to handle clinical trial-related crises?  Please review my 10-point primer published in the latest issue of Communique magazine to learn more. 

 

For a PDF of the article, click here.

Consolidation: How's it Working (or not) for Big Pharma?

After the business challenges of 2009 and what remains a precarious economy this year, we at JFK Communications feel fortunate to be growing again in 2010. And it's starting to look like while the national unemployment numbers remain unacceptably high, the US economy is at last beginning to show signs of improvement.

To me, the US healthcare industry in general and the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical technology industries in particular have always been bright spots on the economic landscape, whether times were good or bad for the country overall. The past few years, however, have been a very different story as we all know.

On the jobs front, I was both surprised and disappointed to learn recently that for the first half of 2010, the US pharmaceutical industry has eliminated approximately 35,000 positions. This is on top of the nearly 60,000 pharma jobs that were eliminated during 2009.

Industry pundits will offer up many reasons for why these job cuts had to be made, not the least of which is the dire economic conditions. But the pharma bloodletting started well before the US economy tanked, and job eliminations in the pharmaceutical industry look set to continue in spite of improving economic conditions.

I think many of the industry's current woes are the direct result of the seemingly endless drive toward consolidation, attempts to create "economies of scale" and getting bigger because it seems that well, that's all big pharma can think to do right now to try to fix its problems.

Consider the following questions:

1. Has the US pharmaceutical industry become a more dynamic, enjoyable and opportunity-rich place for people to work, or has it become less so as the result of increased consolidation?
2. Is the world really better off without such great companies (and places to work) as Pharmacia, Lederle, Parke Davis, Warner Lambert, and Searle, to name just a few?
3. Are more innovative drugs being brought to market in the US as the result of pharma industry consolidation and the existence of fewer, but larger pharmaceutical companies?
4. Has industry consolidation improved the overall financial health of big pharma companies over the past 20 years?
5. What about healthcare costs? Are patients paying any less for their drugs these days?

The culture of consolidation permeating the pharmaceutical industry has impacted every operational area, including how these companies purchase creative services such as advertising, public relations, market research, digital communications and graphic design. In many cases, smaller to mid-sized independent healthcare communications agencies have lost out to mega-sized communications conglomerates such as WPP Group, Omnicom, Publicis and Interpublic Group. These groups have all benefited by entering into "preferred provider" agreements with big pharma companies. I like to think of this trend as the "Walmart-ization" of healthcare communications.

Do marketing directors and brand managers at pharmaceutical companies with preferred agency networks enjoy being told which agencies they have to work with?

And last but not least, it makes me wonder: when has removing competition from the equation ever been good for business?

--David Avitabile

Healthcare PR in a Cost-contained World

With healthcare reform legislation signed by President Obama on March 23 2010, there's no doubt that along with changes to the US health insurance system, there will be a much greater focus on healthcare cost-containment in the years to come. Predictions on whether the impact of this legislation on the US pharmaceutical industry will be positive or negative are mixed.

What does this mean for healthcare public relations? Actually, on this issue, I'm bullish. I think there are a number of reasons why public relations has a major role to play in the changing healthcare environment, and I discuss them in a recent article I published in Communique Volume 16.

Most importantly, challenges such as communicating the very real differences between cost effectiveness as opposed to price when talking about a drug, biologic, device or procedure require the development of multifaceted, nuanced arguments. And public relations, more than any other marketing discipline, is best at framing complex issues, creating and mobilizing advocates and engaging in conversations with multiple stakeholders.

For these reasons, healthcare PR is alive and well in countries where healthcare cost containment has been in place for decades. As an American who lived and worked for eight years in the United Kingdom, you need only look at the vibrant, continuously evolving and highly creative UK healthcare communications agency business to see proof of that. 

There is no doubt that changes in the US healthcare system will place new pressures on the life sciences industry to communicate in different ways. I believe that as a result, healthcare public relations will become a tool that these companies will rely on more than ever before.

For a PDF of the article I published recently in Communique 16, click here.

--David Avitabile

Good Direction or More Control?

For better or worse, on November 12 & 13, 2009, the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration and its Division for Drug Marketing Advertising and Communications (DDMAC) will convene a hearing entitled “Promotion of FDA-Regulated Medical Products Using the Internet and Social Media Tools.”  

Sorry, if you didn’t register by October 9, you will not be able to attend in person; however, all are welcome to participate.  Healthcare communicators, especially healthcare PR folks, should submit questions and comments to: “Electronic Comments,” identified with docket number FDA-2009-N-0441, at http://www.regulations.gov.  Everyone can watch and listen to this hearing for free by registering here.

The hearing will be just that.  Be prepared to listen to more than 80 (that’s right, eighty) 15-minute presentations by healthcare communication leaders from industry, academia, government, media and non-profits.  And, for one who has endured my fair share of FDA hearings, don’t expect any action, other than the obligatory, “We thank all of you for coming, for your time and thoughtful insights.”  “We will take all of your comments under advisement and will continue to compile outside comments and reconvene in 2010.”

We can expect that FDA and DDMAC will float a straw man document for comment in 2010.  And, perhaps after another hearing, they might finalize new regulations in 2010.  For those of us involved in healthcare communications, healthcare PR and medical communications, these new regs will help us reduce our risk of DDMAC violations.  However, it remains to be seen if these new regs will help or hinder industry communication to physicians, patients and caregivers. 

--John Kouten

Will Media Report how Ted Kennedy’s Life was Extended through Improved Technology to Fight Brain Cancer? Probably Not

Ok, I am backlogged on my reading, so what else is new?  If you are a healthcare public relations professional you are, by definition, behind on your reading!  If I can scan my newspapers, multiple news aggregators, and Twitter messages each day I’m ahead of the game.

 

However, I did take the opportunity to review PharmaceuticalExecutive’s Fifth Annual Press Audit.  While this appeared earlier this year, its findings are very relevant today, and will be valid until they field and report the 2010 press audit results. For those involved in healthcare communications and pharmaceutical and biotechnology public relations, these data are profound.

 

The PharmExec audit reveals that while articles covering pharma’s marketing, sales and other promotional practices have fallen, they have been replaced with articles about drug safety issues.  During 2008, Approximately 83% of articles focusing on pharmaceuticals and biotech were about drug safety concerns.  Negative articles about drug safety issues are at a five year high.  And, while overall media coverage of pharma is down, the majority of this coverage is negative, with only a small percentage considered positive (12%).

 

Considering these data, along with the ever increasing regulatory and political headwinds facing the pharma industry, we believe strongly that we need to restore confidence in the industry.  As leaders in healthcare PR and pharma marketing, we are proud of the work we do each day to raise awareness of new ground-breaking medicines and medical technologies.  We are passionate that pharma technology and R&D will contribute to cost savings in this era of healthcare reform and increased rationing. 

 

Many of our clients serve cancer patients and their families.  And, as we have witnessed today with the loss of Senator Ted Kennedy to cancer, the victory over this global scourge is still somewhere in the future. Senator Kennedy’s death is a terrible loss. However, we know that his life was extended months longer than it would have been just ten years ago because of the great strides we have made in the fight against brain cancer.

 

As healthcare communications professionals, I believe it is our responsibility to support a balanced portrayal of the pharmaceutical industry, and communicate with patients, legislators, the business community and the general public about its valuable contributions to extending and enhancing human life.

Tort Reform Anyone?

Unless you missed it, on Friday, July 31, 2009, the Energy and Commerce Committee of the House of Representatives approved H.R. 3200 “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act.” This bill, which will require much more work, has successfully found more consensus than opposition.  It rests on a variety of reforms, most evident are underwriting practices of health insurers.

 

The devil is always in the details, so we can expect major debate over healthcare reform when legislators return from their August recess.  Based on current healthcare spending growth rates, most reasonable Americans understand that some form of healthcare reform will be required to stem the tide of rising healthcare costs. 

 

Healthcare communications professionals, the media and others who are following this debate are asking a number of critical questions. Will a new healthcare law reduce costs or raise costs?  How will such an extensive overhaul be funded? How will the insurance industry compete against a public healthcare insurance option?  Will healthcare reform harm the biomedical industry by hampering investment and innovation?  How will cost containment translate into rationing, and how will Americans react to government-mandated rationing?  Will the quality of physicians and care improve or deteriorate if there is a government-run system?

 

I have seen all of these questions raised by both sides, however, the major question I have not heard much about from either side (and perhaps I’m not listening hard enough) has to do with tort reform.  There just doesn’t seem to be much rhetoric or debate around allowing doctors to practice more preventive medicine and less defensive medicine. 

 

The point of healthcare reform is to reduce cost and improve access to quality healthcare for all Americans. An abundance of lawsuits against doctors, hospitals and insurance companies has had a massive impact on the rising cost of healthcare in this country. Yet the amount of media coverage on the issue of tort reform specifically as it relates to healthcare reform has been minimal at best.

 

A number of op eds have been published on the issue of healthcare reform, both for and against, and many of these have been pretty inflammatory depending upon the political stance of the writer. One of the very few op ed writers who has made a strong case for tort reform as part of healthcare reform is Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post. Now let me be clear: I don’t necessarily agree with all of Krauthammer’s opinions on the issue of healthcare reform. However, he does raise the issue of tort reform, and the need for it, in order to reduce healthcare costs. On that issue, I believe he has a point.

 

There does need to be legal recourse for patients in legitimate cases of medical malpractice. However, for our leaders to focus on cutting out the waste and fraud in our current healthcare system while ignoring the very real need for tort reform as part of the overall healthcare reform package is disappointing.

 

Why haven’t we heard more about malpractice tort reform and capping malpractice awards?

 

Any healthcare reform will be a hollow victory without malpractice tort reform.

The Rhetoric of Healthcare Reform and Healthcare Communications

Last week, National Public Radio’s show “On the Media” discussed the language being used in the healthcare debate. Frank Luntz, communications consultant for the Republican party, shared tips from “The Language of Healthcare 2009: 10 rules for Stopping the ‘Washington Takeover’ of Healthcare,” a 28-page memo instructing the GOP on the best language to sway public opinion.

Both sides of the debate are utilizing highly potent words: “government takeover,” “rationed medicine,” and “ticking time bomb.”  Now, with little chance of movement until after the recess, politicians and stakeholders on both sides of the aisle have the month of August to continue stoking the heat on the healthcare reform debate.

As public relations professionals, we understand the importance of using language to drive awareness, change perceptions and influence behavior.  Words – beyond their denotations – are the most basic of the tools we use.  

Many in life sciences community will rely on the thorough review process of legal, medical and regulatory representatives to tone down or strengthen language as appropriate.  However, with the knowledge that comes from being a healthcare public relations professional, I believe we have a duty to communicate with honesty in all writing, before it even gets to our clients’ desks. 

Words carry weight. Acknowledge your influence, and use them responsibly.

--Maureen Miller

Telling the Human Story of Healthcare Reform

I read an excellent essay in The New York Times on Monday, written by a doctor about the shortcomings of our current healthcare system. In the Times essay, the doctor argued that the current system whereby doctors are paid based on how much they treat patients, rather than how well they treat patients, has created a battle for the soul of medicine. Why do doctors get into medicine in the first place? Is it really just about money? What about building relationships with and caring for patients?

What touched me most about this essay was its humanity. As the battle rages in Washington over healthcare reform, regular people caught up in the current system—doctors, patients, and yes, healthcare executives—are struggling with fundamental questions about why we’re all here in the first place, and how we might be able to make things better.

Call me an idealist, but I really do believe that there are good people on all sides of the debate, including the clients I deal with every day at pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical technology companies. I would say that most of them have chosen to do the work that they do because they want to help people.

My greatest hope for healthcare communications professionals in this environment is that we can work with our clients to tell these human stories, and that the work we do can help remind everybody that the most important thing to remember is why we all got into this in the first place—to help people.

If we can remember that, I'm confident that we will succeed in creating a system that allows doctors to practice medicine with a focus on what is best for the patient, not how many tests and procedures they perform.

I want to thank Dr. Sandeep Jauhar, the cardiologist who wrote that New York Times essay, for sharing his story with us.