Zeno Group Blog

It has become more than clear that the controversy with screening will not cease. This week, the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force added fuel to the controversy by advising against regular mammography screening for women 40-49 years of age, provide mammograms only every other year for women between 50 and 74, and stop all breast cancer screening in women over 74. Soon after that statement was issued many including Komen, American Cancer Society and the American College of Radiology, issued statements against this new recommendation.

As I wonder why this controversy is heating up now, I wonder if it is all due to the renewed emphasis on cost-cutting measures and getting our country’s health care budget under control? Or is it that we are finally realizing that we need more research to understand why even though we have early screening guidelines for many types of cancer we are still losing many of our loved ones unnecessarily? I think that many of us can agree that we need new and improved tests to detect cancer at an earlier stage and there are many in the works but not approved yet. But until we improve on what we have are issuing conflicting guidelines by prominent health organizations really going to save lives and improve care or just create more stress that leads to even more disease in this country?  I believe the argument for delaying testing by many is that there is no proof that testing in younger patients has saved lives. But I wonder if I wait until 50 to get a mammogram, and then at that point I am told that I have cancer and its advanced, how I will feel about having waited? I personally would rather endure the yearly mammogram than have the uncertainty and regret later. This is of course a personal decision with perhaps no right or wrong answer but I am certain of one issue: creating confusion in the minds of Americans will not lead to better outcomes.

As we all digest the very sad news of the death of Senator Ted Kennedy, I feel there is some irony and injustice in his death. He was the champion of health care reform and led the charge for a long while for universal health. He knew the importance of good health care. The irony is despite the excellent health care he had access to from the Federal program and through his own family wealth, the current health care treatments could not save his life.

This is important to recognize as we grapple with health care reform. We must make sure that research dollars for new treatments are preserved and access to experimental drugs becomes a little easier. Yes it’s absolutely important for all Americans to have access to basic health care and current treatments, but let us all not forget that we must still keep working to find new therapies for all those illneses that do not have cures or for patients where the current treatments fail them. Only once we have these discoveries and treatments will we truly have universal health care.

I was reminded this morning of how quickly a seemingly non-related story can be turned into a case study in the healthcare debate.

With Michael Jackson everywhere in the news since his death, I guess it should come as no surprise. However, it was a surprise for me when I turned on the news this morning and they were discussing the whole notion of concierge medicine. The question? Whether what Michael Jackson had, a personal doctor, is really the best care a patient can get. I always thought that the more personal care you could get from a doctor, the better your healthcare would be. But after listening to the debate, it appears there is a fine line.

Personal doctors’ whole source of income comes from one to a few patients, and because of this, they may want to do everything they can to make their patients happy. That may include prescribing drugs or tests that patients want but may not absolutely need. Physicians, who have the confidence of the American people on issues of healthcare reform, are speaking out more and more frequently about the business aspect of private practice.

Patient access to information and resources varies. Those of us involved in health communications know that sharing health information across different media channels and through different voices remains critical. We need to be vigilant about staying on top of the moving pieces in the healthcare debate and how they can influence consumer health coverage. It’s no longer a question of whether there is a health policy connection to a consumer story – it’s a question of what is the connection, and what should we do to prepare for it.

With all the talk of the rise of online social marketing it has gotten me thinking about whether people have abandoned their old ways of getting information from their girlfriend networks or from speaking to friends. I am pretty sure that most people still crave human contact and cherish the relationships they have. Which leads me to my next question: Are they connecting more frequently now because its easier with the Internet? Probably so as it’s also easier to touch more people at once.

But what I think PR people and marketers in general need not forget is the power of the offline conversations that are still happening and that they are happening perhaps more frequently than ever. Women still meet with their girlfriends for coffee or dinner, guys still get together with their guy friends and play ball. The conversations that happen in those venues, I would argue are as important, if not more so than the “online community.”

Also, with cell phones in as widespread use as they are, I would further argue that people talk to their circle of influencers more than ever. So as us marketers work on ways to reach and influence audiences to buy something or change their behavior, we should not forget that as humans we still like to use our hearing sense and talk to people and that the power of the spoken word is still as powerful as the online community or cyber world.