June 2006

Goosing EMRs, and Can 700,000 Doctors Be Wrong?

Recently retired national healthcare IT coordinator Dr. David Brailer once called himself the lead goose guiding the flock in healthcare IT. Leavitt of HHS seems in no rush to replace him, though Brailer's office did get an '06 budget increase to $125 million. If one finds a quarter on the ground, that will count as much toward your retirement fund as Brailer's budget does to national IT adoption.

While a voluntary approach to EMR adoption is preferred, Dr. Brailer's inferences at HIMSS and in other speeches about a possible national sponsored healthcare system (and corresponding EMR - the antique Vista EMR used by the VA system) is unlikely under President Bush. That would also kill the EMR market of the big vendors, all of whom support HIMSS' EHR Vendor Consortium.

The political, consumer and technological heat will put doctors who don't adopt EMR out of business by 2015. Small doc practices who've had legitimate price complaints against adoption have increasingly cheap options from small vendors like NextGen and eMDs. Even the large vendors like Cerner are eyeing the small doc group market.

In the payor world, UnitedHealth scored a legal victory when a Federal judge dismissed the class-action suit against it from the 700,000 doctors who claimed the insurer unfairly cut their reimbursements. The country's largest managed care company held out for seven years for their victory, while peers Aetna, Cigna and Wellpoint settled for many millions.

Robert Seligson, president of the North Carolina Medical Society who participated in the law suit, was cited in my May 16 post, "United We Stand, Together We Fall," about UnitedHealth's allegedly abusive reimbursement practices. UnitedHealth's legal victory comes at a time when the SEC is looking into the stock option timing of CEO Dr. William McGuire.

While the judge liked what UnitedHealth had to say, Wall Street hasn't: The stock is down over 25 percent this year due to the stock timing scandal.

Posted by Shawn Whalen on June 29, 2006 at 4:52 PM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Head of the KLAS

KLAS released its mid-year customer satisfaction report card on healthcare IT vendors. The research firm surveys thousands of providers; rankings are watched closely by industry. Follow the extended field for the first place vendors in each category:

Continue reading "Head of the KLAS" »

Posted by Shawn Whalen on June 27, 2006 at 11:46 AM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Is Your Pitch DOA?

Q&A with Health Columnist Dr. Rallie McAllister

Dr. Rallie McAllister writes the nationally syndicated column "Your Health by Dr. Rallie McAllister." The good Doctor diagnoses PR and tells us how to prevent a story from being DOA. Here is the interview, taken from Schwartz Communications PR Perspectives newsletter, Vol. 2, Issue 4.

Schwartz: Can you describe what kind of health stories you look for?

McAllister: My goal is to write stories that inform and inspire my readers. It's fun to share the fascinating results of a recent clinical trial or news of an exciting medical discovery. The real challenge is to show readers how the information directly impacts their personal health or happiness, and then inspire them to take some kind of action. I'm trying to write stories that, once read, will compel readers to make positive changes in their lives. When it comes to health-related news, readers have one major question: "Why should I care?" If the story answers that question clearly and convincingly, it's likely to be a good one.

Schwartz: What makes for a good story (compelling patients, FDA decisions, published studies)?

McAllister: Facts, figures, and FDA rulings provide an important factual foundation for health-related articles, but you can't really count on any of these elements to inspire readers or motivate them to change. Readers want to be informed and educated, but they also want to be moved. That's why patient stories are so effective. When readers learn about the struggles and successes of real people, they instantly begin to relate and identify with them. Now, the information isn't just an abstract idea that barely registers in readers' brains, it's something far more powerful and unforgettable. It's a concrete reality that they've embraced with emotion and experienced in their hearts. Compelling patient stories help readers make an important connection, and to take ownership of the message you're delivering. These stories drive readers to say, "Hey! This is something that could happen to me, too."

Schwartz: Do you have go-to sources that you speak with regularly? What makes for a trusted source and/or great interview?

McAllister: My articles tend to have a relatively narrow focus-I'm trying to deliver a single message clearly and convincingly. Ideally, I'll interview one expert who is a recognized authority in the related field, and one patient whose life has been changed. This gives the article a greater depth, and a balance between facts and feelings. Trusted sources are professionals who have great expertise, education, or experience in the related field. I think readers attach far more credibility to experts who have a professional or academic interest in the topic, rather than a financial interest.

It's a wonderful experience to interview experts who are also believers, especially when their beliefs are backed by solid evidence. Great interviewees speak in two languages. One is the slow, patient, explanatory tone of a teacher, to ensure that the writer understands the story, gets the facts straight, and loses nothing in translation. The second language consists of powerful sound bytes, buzz words, and catch phrases that the writer can plug into the story to drive home important points.

Schwartz: Is the emerging trend towards playing a greater role in managing one's own personal healthcare changing the way readers consume health news?

McAllister: For better or worse, the once sacred doctor-patient bond no longer exists. Managed care and medical malpractice have basically pitted physicians and patients against each other as "healthcare providers" and "healthcare consumers." In the past, patients trusted doctors with their lives-literally. Now, modern day healthcare consumers consider themselves to be the captains of their own ships. They no longer rely exclusively on their doctors for medical information, and they're often skeptical of their physicians' decisions and diagnoses. These days, the media is the universal source of second opinions. Readers are careful, conscientious consumers of health-related news, and they consume it as if their lives depend on it.

Schwartz: What is the best way for PR professionals to reach you with story ideas?

McAllister: I'm always excited to see the words "I've got a great idea for a story..." in my e-mail. My address is www.rallieonhealth.com, and I welcome correspondence.

Posted by Shawn Whalen on June 26, 2006 at 3:37 PM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

So Who Do You Compete Against?

PR Tactics: Answering the Competition Question

Part Three in a Continuing Series on Healthcare IT Public Relations

Departing from my usual issue-oriented focus, here is some media interview advice for healthcare marketers from the Schwartz Communique newsletter. Picture this scenario: You've worked hard to get your company in front of a reporter. The questions so far have been great, delving deeply into your company, its market and what makes your product great. It feels like the reporter is going to write a good story about your company.

Then it comes, the question you've been dreading: "So, who are your competitors?" Don't be frightened by this question. It's actually the perfect opportunity to frame your own landscape, positioning your company as you see it in relation to others. It also gives you yet another chance to communicate key messages.

Here are some ways to answer the question while gaining the greatest advantage:

Categorize -- Don't give your competitors free publicity by naming them right off the bat. Instead, start by mentioning the category of companies that can be considered competitive. You can then use the opportunity to stress what makes your particular technology or product unique.

Attribute -- Often the reporter pushes and wants company names. In this case, it's best to attribute your choices to a third party, such as an analyst firm. A line such as "some analysts who cover the space say we compete with Microsoft and Cerner..."

Choose Your Competition -- In business as in life, you're known by the company you keep. Carefully choose which companies you name as your competitors. Don't be afraid to compete with the big guys - this can signal your confidence that your offerings are unique and compelling enough to stand up to the fiercest competition.

Reframe -- If your competitor's name comes up, take the opportunity to re-position them to your advantage. Competing with an industry giant? Then you're the best-of-breed player with intense focus and the customers to prove it. Competing with smaller companies? Then you're the market share leader with all the momentum behind you. However, don't go into a lot of depth about your competitor's strengths and weaknesses. Instead, use that time in the interview to highlight your company's unique strengths.

The question can also haunt you if not handled correctly. Here are some things NOT to do:

Duck and Cover -- While a tempting response, saying "we have no competitors" is never the best course of action. Besides the fact that most reporters greet such answers with skepticism, many media and analysts see this answer as a signal that your market niche is too small to attract other
players.

Avoiding the Question -- If you avoid the question entirely, the reporter will be left to choose your competition for you. Frame the competition on your terms rather then leaving it up to chance.

Bashing -- Don't be baited into bashing the competition and risk getting quoted negatively. Take the high road whenever possible.

I look forward to your feedback on future topics for this occasional series on healthcare IT PR tips. These posts are gathered together in the "PR Strategy and Tactics" Category in the list at your right.

Posted by Shawn Whalen on June 19, 2006 at 2:07 PM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Continua Inside

National Healthcare IT Week passed with little national media notice. What did capture some headlines was a new industry standard group called Continua Health Alliance. Twenty-two technology and health companies have come together to promote standards in home care technology for remote monitoring and transmission to providers.

This will enable the vendors to sell more product to a growing market of aging baby boomers that will tax hospital capacity. Vendors include Cisco, Intel, IBM, GE Healthcare, Kaiser Permanente, Medtronic, Motorola, Partners Healthcare, Phillips, Samsung and others. Intel is chairing the alliance; certified vendors will get a logo on their products, echoing Intel's ubiquitous label.

This is a logical standard, if not self serving, and will join the many other standards already proposed for different aspects of healthcare IT such as EMR. Some vendors are grumbling about too many standards (particularly CCHIT), but if everything from light bulbs to cars have to pass certification and standards it seems that the technology involved in healthcare certainly needs it.

Posted by Shawn Whalen on June 12, 2006 at 1:03 PM
Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

A Penny for Your Health?

As we celebrate National Health IT Week this week it's interesting to put the United States healthcare IT consumption into a global perspective. As reported in AISHealth.com, the May/June issue of Health Affairs states that U.S. government is spending just a few cents on the dollar on healthcare IT when compared with other industrialized nations. America is about a dozen years behind most other industrialized nations in healthcare IT adoption. Citing a lack of studies that prove a correlation between cost reduction and HIT adoption, the study points out that simply because the U.S. trails in HIT spending, one can't conclude there is a direct relationship between its relative performance and its spending on care. Congress authorized $125 million for fiscal 2006 and $155 million for fiscal 2007 for healthcare IT. A RAND study puts the amount at $156 billion over a five-year period.

Posted by Shawn Whalen on June 5, 2006 at 2:50 PM
Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)