Zeno Group Blog

In my opinion, one of the most rewarding aspects of working in health communications is our ability to make a positive contribution through our work, as we help to ensure that our clients’ efforts are successful. Whether it’s an awareness campaign launch or data and milestone support, we’re invested.

All of us Zeno-ites in the health practice are always following the health news and trends to see how our clients may be impacted and where they fit in the story. The privilege of working in the health space is that it affects all of us on some level whether directly or indirectly.

As health care communications specialists, we are uber-aware of everything from oncology to orphan disorders. We can rattle off survival rates for a variety of diseases. We likely ask our doctors too many questions and may find ourselves opting for a few extra screening measures, and recommending them to our family and friends as well.

For some of us, our professional lives have further piqued our interest and inspired us to get involved on a personal level.

Just last week, a colleague volunteered her time and even braved flu-like symptoms to serve as a bone marrow donor.

On a much smaller note, I’m completing my second season with the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society’s (LLS) Team in Training (TNT) program. This season has been a special one for me since I’ve had the opportunity to serve as a team captain helping new runners reach their fundraising and training goals as they prepare to take on their first half or full marathon on March 20. While it’s no secret that I love running, I also feel strongly about TNT’s mission to find a cure for blood cancers and improve the quality of life of patients and their families.

Health may be our business but it’s personal as well.

As a public relations professional and former journalism major, I often take it for granted that scouring a variety of news outlets each morning is part of my job description. After all, I work in an environment where I’m encouraged to express myself through this very company blog.

Maybe that’s why I was so taken aback when I came across the Washington Post article, “China Faces Backlash from ‘Netizens’ if Google Leaves” regarding Google’s threat to shut down its Chinese Web site over censorship issues.

The report included commentary from a variety of Chinese citizens.

“This will make the extent of Chinese censorship a lot clearer even to ordinary Chinese people who are not aware of it,” said Jeremy Goldkorn, who runs an Internet research firm and a Web site, which has been blocked since July.

Zhou Shuguang, a blogger who has done investigative reporting across the country, said that, “the withdrawal from China will wake up more Chinese and make more people discover that China lacks freedom on the Internet and the government has very strong censorship online. There are no benefits to people at all if Google continues to make concessions with Chinese authorities.”

According the Washington Post report, “businesspeople in Beijing were pessimistic, as were many people at Google itself, about the prospect of a crack in what is known as the Great Firewall of China.”

“China can’t lose face over this, and it’s not going to let anybody run an open search engine,” said an industry source close to Google.

The report noted that, “This week alone the General Administration of Press and Publication boasted of taking down 136,000 non-registered Web sites and more than 1.5 million pieces of bad information this week”

While some friends working in other industries have shared that their companies block a few social networking sites, I can’t fathom not being a way to freely search Google.

The current censorship issue between the Chinese government and Google makes me especially appreciative of our first amendment rights.

As the health care debate continues, women’s issues are taking center stage. Now, more than ever, women are key stakeholders and must remain engaged.

This week Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D., Md.) offered an amendment that would require insurers to cover more screening and preventive care for women, with no co-payments. According to a Dec. 1 New York Times article, “Senators Pitch to Women and Elderly on Health Bill,” Mikulsi said, “Women often forgo those critical preventive screenings because they simply cannot afford it, or their insurance company won’t pay for it unless it is mandated by state law.”

But not so fast, according to the article, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R., TX) criticized Mikulski’s proposal which would develop comprehensive guidelines recommending preventive care and screenings for women, saying it would “allow yet another government agency to interfere in the relationship between a woman and her doctor.”

The New York Times Economix blog’s November 30th post, “Sex, Abortions and Health Insurance,” by New York Times blogger and University of Massachusetts economics professor, Nancy Folbre, noted that the Stupak-Pitts amendment in proposed House legislation that would prohibit companies from offering policies covering abortions in subsidized health insurance exchanges.

Folbre included comments from Wellesley economist Phillip Levine’s recent New York Times Op-Ed which labeled the controversy a “false alarm” stating that, “If health insurance reform passed, after all, the expansion of medical services to low-income women, including improved family planning services, would compensate for the risks of paying for abortions out-of-pocket.”

Folbre stated that she was “unconvinced” noting that “neither of the bills currently before either the House of Senate mandates coverage of contraceptive services, pelvic exams or counseling for sexually transmitted diseases.”

Regardless of where you stand, one thing we can all agree on is the importance of women’s health issues. It will be interesting to see how the debate plays out and how it ultimately affects women.