Skip to main content
Category

All

Post Q1 Woes – Picking Future Winners and Losers

Text that reads "Quick Think" on a navy background with a lightly shaded light bulb icon

Note: This piece was originally published over the weekend in our Sunday newsletter. Want content like this delivered to your inbox before it hits our blog? Subscribe here.

The Big Story: Rising expenses at hospitals are unsustainable, AHA says

Prior to the pandemic, hospitals spent about 4.7 percent of labor expenses for nurses on contract travel nurses. That figure grew to about 39 percent in January, according to AHA report. The current trajectory for hospital expenses isn’t sustainable.

“The dramatic rise in costs of labor, drugs, supplies and equipment continue to put enormous pressure on our ability to provide care to our patients and communities,” AHA President and CEO Rick Pollack said in the statement.

What Comes Next

It was a dismal first quarter for healthcare providers. Of course there are some hospitals andhealth systems that are in a better spot, getting good marks from Fitch and Moody’s. But on the whole, the numbers have been bleak.

Today, we’re looking at forces currently pushing and pulling the industry and inevitably reshaping the provider landscape. The definition of success here is both idealistic and practical. It is both financial viability and the ability for a system to appropriately deliver on its mission to care for patients. We know the balance sheet must add up, and your CFOs need a clear path to sustainability, but ideals are also good.

So, let’s put the numbers aside for a moment. What will it take for healthcare providers to evolve successfully for the future?

  • The hospital becomes the center of acute care, and little else.
  • Delivery of care takes place in varied settings, from specialty outpatient clinics to the local grocery to the patient’s home to the patient’s texting app.
  • Specialization and expertise will become the watchwords, with health services companies stepping in with innovative, flexible services and private capital contributing resources and a keen operational eye.
  • Partnerships will also become more varied and collaborative, with the new hospital working in tandem with other types of healthcare organizations to provide a distributed, yet efficient and high-quality patient journey.

Certainly, there’s a long way to get from today’s messy Point A to an idealistic Point Z, but a shift in what constitutes risk and a willingness to undertake hard change will be critical to sustainability – and maybe allow your CFO to sleep better at night.

Here are our bets on what factors will contribute to a system winning or losing in the new healthcare ecosystem.

Healthcare Winners

The core trait of a healthcare organization that will make it through is a recognition that creative transformation is less risky today than taking a defensive posture. Remodeling, not rearranging furniture, is needed to establish sustainable models of care going forward. Other aspects the winners should consider:

  • Value-based care. Fee for service is predicated on, well, services. No volume, no revenue. The decade-long push towards value has likely reached a tipping point when there’s no other option.
  • Alignment, not employment. Hospitals are looking at offloading physician groups to PE-backed companies and entering operating partnerships to ensure continuity of care without having their employment contracts on the books. It’s one form of streamlining the labor issue where each entity can focus on managing that which it is best at.
  • Private capital. Beyond just staffing models, many traditional provider organizations are looking to sell non-core services like labs and even some specialty practices like orthopedics and cardiology to get them off the balance sheet. Meanwhile, PE is ready with capital to deploy and operational expertise to ensure quality of care and financial sustainability.
  • Scale. Certainly, the ability to centralize operational departments – revenue cycle and the like – and standardize others is helpful. In addition, a smaller hospital that aligns with a large system will obviously have access to resources that can help them to stay open. Deals were down in Q1, but assuming the financial pressure continues to build, that trend could very well reverse.
  • Low debt. Enough said.

Healthcare Losers

Here, it’s largely the opposite traits. If flexibility and risk-taking wins, rigidity loses. Yes, there are some factors that are tough to control or change – like serving largely susceptible populations. But doubling down on the way things have always been done will only compound those concerns.

  • Rigid care models. Better develop that VBC playbook.
  • Susceptible populations. Serving a population with a high proportion of at-risk patients is problematic when reimbursement is difficult. The caveat is that this challenge is greater in a fee-for-service mindset. Flexibility and creativity in what it means to provide care can help mitigate this point.
  • Being all things to all people. Trying to do too much and spreading the organization too thin when resources are scarce rather than focusing on core expertise.
  • Stay the course. All told, continuing to view the hospital as the core of healthcare delivery is a surefire bet for a slide into unsustainability. Defensiveness and cost-cutting can only go so far before quality suffers and the organization is forced to offload services or shut down. Why not do that proactively and productively from a position of relative strength rather than hold a fire sale?
  • High debt. Enough said.

This piece was originally published over the weekend in our Sunday Quick Think newsletter. Fill out the form to get that in your inbox every week.

Subscribe to Jarrard Insights & News

Name(Required)

DigitaLee 6: NFT or WTF, Healthcare in the Metaverse & Digital ROI pt. 2

Orange text that reads "The Digital Future of Healthcare" with smaller text at the bottom saying "DigitaLee with Lee Aase" on a navy blue background

Welcome to DigitaLee, the podcast for healthcare marketers, where we look at the digital news, tools, tips and tricks for effective healthcare communications. This week, David Shifrin and Lee Aase are both confused by CVS moving into selling virtual healthcare goods. Once they get past that, they look at provider organizations planting the flag in the metaverse, and then it’s the second of our two-part digital ROI miniseries, this one on how healthcare marketers can position digital programming to justify the ROI.

Listen and subscribe to the podcast, or read the transcript below.

Episode Links

Read the transcript

David Shifrin: I’ll be honest. I’m confused by this story today. It’s from Healthcare Finance News and it’s, you know, I’m confused, but got to talk about it. I want to talk about it. “CVS Files Patent to Sell Goods and Healthcare Services in the Metaverse.” And when you read through the article, it’s not exactly clear exactly what CVS is going to be selling, because if I fall and slice my hand open, I don’t need a metaverse stitching and bandage, I need an actual emergency room. But this is continuing with this rapid rise in stories that we’re seeing about what the metaverse is doing and can do. And of course, Facebook has rebranded to become Meta and virtual reality is here and expanding.

So yeah, what is your take on digital goods and services?

Lee Aase: Yeah, I thought I was confused by it as well, because it says, you know, “CVS Health wants to trademark its logo, establish an online store, create downloadable virtual goods ranging from prescription drugs to beauty and personal care products.” I’m thinking, are we going to have a virtual opioid crisis?

Or what’s the deal? Just like, how does virtual work in that? So I’m not really sure. I think there’s, I mean when it really gets down to it, I think some of the telepresence stuff that was talked about in the other article that we’ll be talking about, and I apologize for jumping ahead with it, but it seems like the, it seems like the immersive experiences for really making that virtual connection be much more like face-to-face.

And perhaps even in some ways because you can have some digital measurement sensors attached with them, I think there are some opportunities to really enhance that experience. I think the main thing, the main thing out of this story is something that does relate to what I’ve advocated for a long time, is that when a platform comes out that it’s really important for big brands to be staking their claim, you know, that they don’t want somebody else to be squatting on their name.

We had an experience when I was at Mayo Clinic that we had, there was a British rock band that set up a page on MySpace called Mayo Clinic and the band’s name was Mayo Clinic from County Mayo in Ireland. And they thought that was cute, I guess, but so that gave us some impetus for being able to say hey, we should set up… This was back when Facebook pages were the new thing. We said let’s set up a page on Facebook to make sure that nobody else claims that. So I think this is just sort of taking that next step on the legal front, that where CVS is saying, okay, metaverse is going to be a thing, so let’s at least stake our claim here, and set out the stakes that we are CVS in the metaverse and nobody else can use that.

David Shifrin: So it’s protective as much as it is proactive.

Lee Aase: I kind of think…so, I mean, that’s what it looks like to me because I have a hard time wrapping my head around how virtual goods can be. I can see virtual services totally. But virtual goods seem a little bit disconnected.

David Shifrin: Yeah. Well, and the article also mentioned that they’re talking about potentially selling NFTs, non-fungible tokens, which is a whole other Pandora’s box that we’re not going to get into right now, but that’s the other big thing. And again, personally I don’t see the value in buying any, I don’t know what kind of NFT CVS is going to offer me that’s going to make me want to spend the money, Bored Ape Yacht Club isn’t even enough to get me interested. So I don’t know what CVS is, but…

Lee Aase: Yeah, I think there’s, you know, NFT and then there’s another acronym that uses both T and F as well, but maybe kinda…

David Shifrin: I think we found the title for this episode.

All right. Before this goes off the rails Lee, let’s move into the second section which, as you telegraphed, is more on the metaverse, again not really a platform specifically, but a digital place. This is from a Forbes contributor named Bernard Marr who writes on enterprise tech. The title is “Amazing Possibilities of Healthcare in the Metaverse” which got us thinking again, the metaphor as a place, as a platform of sorts. There’s sort of three areas that Marr references: telepresence, which you’ve mentioned, digital twins, which is really interesting, and then blockchain technology, which we hinted at there with talking about NFTs, but you know, some of this stuff is pretty immediate—I think like the telepresence of being able to offer telehealth visits in the metaverse or simply just by good old fashioned Zoom call. And then some of it like the digital twins is incredibly fascinating and I think promising, but a much longer play. This is mapping people’s genetics, so they can, we can experiment virtually and to see how we’re going to respond to treatment. So what are you looking at as the metaverse continues to get more, more traction?

Lee Aase: Yeah. I mean, I definitely think the telepresence part has a lot of application right away. And I think that’s where organizations could, especially in things like counseling and therapy sort of approaches, be able to have that much more immersive experience; to have it be much more like being there would be I think that’s a no brainer. And then, and finding…so I’d suggest that for organizations, finding someone, finding an advocate within the organization, within the clinical areas, who’s really interested in applying this, coming around them and helping them to prove the concept and show the value I think is really a good opportunity.

The digital twinning does sound fascinating. I just think it’s hard to…I think it’s problematic in just even as you note, as you map the whole genome, how do you know exactly whether you’re taking into account the right factors as you’re fast forwarding through 10 years, about what happens with, you know, the whole idea of like, you take a twin and you say, okay, maybe you could run a thousand simulations and be able to then come up with a… Actually as I think it through, I think that might be it, the Monte Carlo simulation with digital.

So it’s not just digital twins, it’s digital…you’re creating a population out of the twins. So just as with Moore’s law and the power of computing increasing exponentially, probably eventually at some point you’d be able to run those sorts of simulations that might give you a better sense of what the range of possibilities would be, given a different intervention.

David Shifrin: Okay. In the meantime of that while the scientists and the data folks are trying to figure out how to do all of that – and we just talked about kind of staking a claim in wherever you are as an organization – the metaverse becoming a more powerful place for brands to engage.

And so any other prep work that folks should be thinking about? Whether that’s with HIPAA compliance, training clinicians to be thinking about one day possibly entering virtual reality to deliver telehealth, anything along those lines?

Lee Aase: As I alluded to a little earlier, I think the key is to find the champions, to find the early adopters who are willing to experiment and learn. Willing to help sort out what the issues are going to be, so that then the organization can apply it on a broader scale.

So it’s part, and this kind of relates, probably segues into our ROI discussion for this time, that, as I mentioned before in my thesis, that as the I approaches zero ROI approaches infinity. One of the big ways that you keep the I low is by getting people to volunteer—by getting people who are already on staff to say wow, this is really cool and I want to focus my energy on this. I’m willing to dive in and put in my own effort on it.

And so that’s that kind of makes the organization more like a startup, you know, even an established organization where you’ve got a lot of people that are psychically betting on exercising options, so to speak. I mean, they’re trying to, they’re creating some psychic ownership in a new trend and because of the personal satisfaction that they get out of leadership in an area like that. So I think finding, identifying and recruiting people from within the organization that you already have to say would you like to play? would you like to be involved in this? is a way to be able to demonstrate that the potential to demonstrate the return without a major outlay of additional resources so that you can prove the concept and then hopefully make the case for a broader adoption.

David Shifrin: Okay, in our next conversation, we may, maybe we’ll talk about kind of setting up how you set up a sandbox with enough guardrails to be careful but also giving people the freedom to test that out.

In the meantime: digital ROI part two and talking about how healthcare marketers position digital programming to justify that ROI.

And you’ve talked about it last time, and then just before this is the last thing you said there was hopefully take the results on to the rest of the organization and leadership and show the value. What does that look like? How should digital marketers think about helping to get their leadership teams bought into these programs that they’re testing out?

Lee Aase: I think the first thing is they have to be solving a real problem that the organization is either spending money on now or creating new opportunities for generating income. So it’s either, how can you concretely save money through some of these digital innovations?

So for instance, if it’s telepresence, okay, you’re saving time on travel in between meetings and you’re enabling people to be able to be more…have less overhead in terms of those face-to-face relationships and interactions. So figuring out ways that you can measure and make the case for that, for the savings that are coming there. But then also beyond that in testing and learning and seeing where the additional revenue opportunities are, and by trying this out are we able to make additional connections that will lead to patient volume, will lead to memberships or whatever the model is of acquisition?

David Shifrin: Alright, Lee, well, thanks!

Subscribe to Jarrard Insights & News

Name(Required)

Special Report: Intro to Healthcare Communications 2022

A cartoon image of a living room with a news anchor on the TV screen with banner that reads "special report" and a fish in a fish tank on the side dresser

Let’s make this multiple choice. Pick one or more to describe takeaways associated with current communications trends.

A. People have the attention span of a goldfish.

B. Local news is dead.

C. People aren’t willing to consider opposing viewpoints.

D. People trust family and friends.

E. People don’t trust institutions.

F. People watch, not read.

G. All of the above.

You went for G, right? Because when it comes to communications today, each of those axioms pops up with regularity. It’s impossible to catch – and hold – your audience’s attention. There’s little room for discourse. And we won’t even start on the impact of short, flashy and content-lite videos published to TikTok, Snap or YouTube.

How’s anyone supposed to cut through the noise when there’s a serious point to make and the world is distracted scrolling through memes?

We know. But first, let’s see if your choice was correct. Our proof points come from a survey Jarrard Inc. conducted in early April. Responses that follow come from 800 US adults who answered questions about how they prefer to receive information, how often and whom they trust to provide it.

Here’s what we found:

A. People have the attention span of a goldfish

58% Regularly read long-form content

Not exactly. People do prefer shorter content. But they will take the time to go deeper. More than a third of respondents said they’re more likely to read short-form content on any given day, versus just 15 percent who said long-form. But a plurality – more than four in 10 – said the average day was likely to include both. In addition, 58 percent said they read long content a few times a week or daily – the same total as short content.

On an average day, are you more likely to read long-form or short-form content?

Donut chart with 6% "unsure," 15% "long," 37% "short," and 43% both

B. Local news is dead

Wrong. It’s not. Well over half of survey respondents selected local TV as a source of news, and more than a quarter picked it as their top choice.

Where do you go for your news? (Pick all that apply)

A bar graph with the x-axis representing news sources and the y-axis representing percentage (up to 60%).

What is your top choice for getting news?

A bar graph with the x-axis representing news sources and the y-axis representing percentage (up to 30%).

Though perhaps surprising, these findings are consistent with other studies over the past few years. A rapid decline in local TV viewership was arrested and somewhat reversed during the stay-at-home days of the pandemic.

A collage of local news headline clips

C. People trust family and friends

This checks out. Especially the family part. Throughout human history, people have made their way into tribes and are skeptical of outsiders. It’s evolutionary hardwiring in place to boost safety and overall success. Ergo, it makes sense that when asked about who they trust, family tops the list in a statistical dead heat with doctors. An important note here about that trust in doctors: If you’ve been following our surveys for a while, you know that we consistently highlight physicians and nurses as trusted voices on healthcare issues. This survey – related to but distinct from that series – asked a more general question about whether people trust information in general from different sources, not just healthcare information. That doctors remain at the top of the list shows the depth of that inherent trust, even beyond their professional expertise.

The slightly wider circle of friends and neighbors is far less trusted, yet still sits at almost 50 percent. People want social proof and trust loved ones – even above information they find when looking for insight on a topic.

Importantly, though, expertise is still highly valued, with academic experts and nurses rounding out the list of most-trusted individuals. Family matters, but so does deep professional training. CEOs, brace yourselves. You barely avoid the bottom spot, perennially occupied by politicians.

C. People trust family and friends

This checks out. Especially the family part. Throughout human history, people have made their way into tribes and are skeptical of outsiders. It’s evolutionary hardwiring in place to boost safety and overall success. Ergo, it makes sense that when asked about who they trust, family tops the list in a statistical dead heat with doctors. An important note here about that trust in doctors: If you’ve been following our surveys for a while, you know that we consistently highlight physicians and nurses as trusted voices on healthcare issues. This survey – related to but distinct from that series – asked a more general question about whether people trust information in general from different sources, not just healthcare information. That doctors remain at the top of the list shows the depth of that inherent trust, even beyond their professional expertise.

The slightly wider circle of friends and neighbors is far less trusted, yet still sits at almost 50 percent. People want social proof and trust loved ones – even above information they find when looking for insight on a topic.

Importantly, though, expertise is still highly valued, with academic experts and nurses rounding out the list of most-trusted individuals. Family matters, but so does deep professional training. CEOs, brace yourselves. You barely avoid the bottom spot, perennially occupied by politicians.

How much do you trust information from each of the following sources?

(Scale of 1-5: 1 = Do not trust, 3 = Neutral, 4-5 = Do trust)

A horizontal stacked bar graph representing the percentage of trusted individuals

In general, how much do you trust information from…

(Scale of 1-10: 1-3 = Very little, 4-5 = A little, 6-7 = Somewhat, 8-10 = A great deal)

A horizontal stacked bar graph representing the percentage of trust by sources

D. People aren’t willing to consider opposing viewpoints

How likely are you to change your opinion based on a statement by/discussion with someone with an opposing viewpoint?

A donut graph with 13% "very likely," 26% "very unlikely," 35% "unlikely," and 26% "somewhat likely."

In the past year, have you changed your opinion based on a statement by/discussion with someone with an opposing viewpoint?

A donut graph with 20% "unsure," 39% "yes," and 41% "no."

This was quite the surprise. In this time of bumper stickers, polarization and tribalism, it seems counter to the conventional wisdom that people might be willing to consider ideas they don’t already agree with. Yet, almost four in 10 respondents say they had in the past year changed their opinion based on ideas from someone with an opposing viewpoint. And another 40 percent says they just might.

Of course, this is all self-reported and might reflect the respondents’ desire to be perceived as open-minded than actual open-mindedness in practice. Even so, this is cause for optimism. Because, at minimum, there’s a segment of the population that wants to be thought of as open-minded.

E. People don’t trust institutions

True. If family and doctors are highly trusted, CEOs are, well, not. Though not asked in the survey, it’s not a big leap to see how the idea of a “CEO” here could be interpreted as either the individual – the head of a corporation – or as a proxy for the corporation itself. The dark suit, if you will. This is a warning for any institution and leader. People are relational, looking for information and reassurance from other individuals while holding a notable skepticism of organizations.

F. People watch, not read

Video is king. If you’re in marketing and communications, you’re keenly aware that short, visually engaging content is the way to consumers’ hearts. Our survey reinforced this position. Almost half of people expressed a preference for video – 18 points above written text and 3.5-times more than audio. This doesn’t mean that other media are dead. Just that visual content must be a core component of any communications strategy.

Which format do you prefer for receiving/consuming news and information?

A donut graph with 14% "no preference," 46% "video," 28% "written text," and 13% "audio."

Advice

Those are the findings. Now, what does it all mean for healthcare communications?

From our survey, one core message supersedes all others:

There’s a tendency to measure success by activity, not influence. Yet the real movement may be hidden.

It’s away from measurable campaigns like social media and billboards. And it’s found in the conversations between doctors and patients, family and friends. The ROI of relationships and interpersonal trust is unquantifiable but invaluable.

For marketing and communications advisors, this is straight talk that bears repeating: Our activity is not “it.” The hard work is in earning the conversations that take place around the dinner table.

There’s hardcore – though perhaps not entirely quantifiable – benefit to “Dinner Table ROI.” The local and personal nature of communications, trust and healthcare – along with the high trust doctors and nurses continue to enjoy – means that healthcare brands may very well be sturdier than the hot-take Twitterati say they are. The experience a strong brand provides is far more enduring than a Twitter storm. If you’ve built a strong reputation, then when the hot takes come in, those dinner conversations will include a heavy dose of people telling their loved ones, “That wasn’t my experience,” or, “I’d still go see Dr. Smith.”

We’ve written before that providers should not passively rely on an historic positive reputation. Or on the personal trust between doctor and patient. Foundational as those things may be, they’re not inviolable. Patients can choose to follow a physician rather than a hospital. And the low trust in institutions means that no corporate reputation is safe, especially in a time when hospitals are under significant fire. We stand by that advice and suggest that the strength healthcare organizations maintain is a starting point to build from, not a resting place.

How to build? Forget the Three Rs. Your answer lies in Six Ts.

Time

The first step to moving someone to action isn’t giving them new information. It’s overcoming resistance to receiving new information. “It’s a long journey to persuade people even to receive the information, much less change their mind based on it,” said Teresa Hicks, associate vice president in Jarrard Inc.’s National and Academic Health Systems Practice.

So focus internally first to make the most of that time, says Abby McNeil, vice president in the National and Academic Health Systems Practice. While there’s a lot of value to be had in media relationships (see sidebar) healthcare communications leaders need to focus initially on physicians, employees, partners, and other internal stakeholders. “Because we trust people we know most, their experience, along with the patient/consumer experience, is what moves the needle fastest with brands either in a positive or negative way.”

Trust

There’s good and bad in the trust numbers from our survey. On one hand, it’s easier to receive information from a cherished sister or brother instead of reading a stack of articles for yourself. “There’s an element of comfort that comes from that relationship,” Hicks noted. Yet depending on the information shared between sisters, that could be a good thing – “Go get your COVID-19 vaccine!” – or a bad thing – “the COVID-19 vaccine contains tracking devices!”

Kim Fox, partner and Regional Practice lead at Jarrard Inc., added, “The dinner table is a safe place. You can explore your perspective and feelings there. You can openly be your true self, whereas you often can’t in other settings.”

For healthcare organizations, the charge then is:

And what of spokespeople? Well, your physicians, nurses and academic experts remain high on the trust list. CEOs? Not so much. We think that in many cases, the word “CEO” could easily be viewed by many as a proxy for “corporation.” When faced with a critical message – or even just day-to-day communications – provider organizations must be careful to use the person who is best suited to deliver it, even if that person may not be the most prominent. We typically see this in advertising: It’s white coats in hospital TV ads, not suits.

Of course, there’s also a big difference between “CEOs” in general and Jane Doe, CEO of Anytown Medical Center. So, there’s certainly an opportunity for any leader to be a trusted voice. That trust must be cultivated, which McNeil references in media training sessions. “I tell leaders they have to make deposits in the community trust bank daily, because at some point there will be an issue or a crisis, and they’ll have to make a withdrawal,” she said. “Those deposits happen at every single touchpoint with the brand.”

Last note here: Fox pointed out another subtle but important distinction in the trust numbers. “People don’t trust celebrities. Providers should be careful about if and when they use celebrities as spokespeople.” she said. “They’re known, but not trusted.”

Why Are Doctors So Highly Trusted?

We noted above that doctors aren’t just trusted on health information, they’re trusted even when the question is about information writ large. Why? Fox had an idea. Perhaps it’s because of their unique position as recipients of our secrets. “We may trust doctors because they hear things that we won’t say even to our families,” Fox suggested. While the dinner table is, in Fox’s terminology, a safe space, the doctors’ office is reserved for discussing a subset of deeply personal concerns. Arguably, clergy have historically held this position, yet they fell in the middle of the trust list in our survey (fallout from the decline of organized religion, perhaps).  Could it be that the knowledge that our medical caregivers know things about us no one else does lead to trust, or even force it? Or is the trust necessary up front for us to feel comfortable being open with our physician? It’s an intriguing chicken and egg question we don’t have an answer to but will be pondering.

Translation

Almost everything we know has been interpreted for us by someone who understands it better than we do.

Sounds scary, but is it? Not really. We need experts to discover and then translate since no one knows everything. Society needs specialists to develop ideas and make discoveries, but then it also needs a series of people to translate that information into something we all can use. And at the end of that chain must be a trusted, one-on-one interaction.

That’s why hearing from a family member is far more palatable than digging through mountains of primary literature.

So too with health information. Healthcare providers need to remember that the process of translation is good and necessary. Done correctly, the process makes the complex and unintelligible something that can be processed by, well, anyone who isn’t the expert. This means investing in people and processes that can review critical messages and adapt them as needed. It’s taking an active approach – not just asking a charismatic physician to go out and extoll the virtues of vaccines or colonoscopies. It’s building a pipeline to finesse information into a format and level that is exactly what the audience needs. Playing a huge role in this is your marketing and communications team who should both identify the core message, shape and review it for accessibility and then develop final products that engage the end user.

Training

Smart healthcare providers invest in training trusted voices to communicate effectively.

“We can work to make the people who can translate trusted,” said Hicks. “But… that’s a lot harder than finding someone who’s already trusted and giving them the skills they need to translate.” That doesn’t mean sending community leaders to a crash course in immunology and vaccine development, but it does mean sitting down with them and the specialists – those in the first and second layers of translation, if you will – to walk through the information, its impact and how people should respond.

You’re familiar with examples of health systems working with clergy to promote the COVID-19 vaccine. Another example could be a local facility engaging with EMS directors across a community to explain how and why consolidation of emergency services will work – and why it makes sense for the community.

“Whatever the topic is, finding the people who already have earned the trust of their community and investing in convincing those people to share the information is the way to go,” Hicks said. “Because this survey shows that people trust relationships more than they trust data.”

Tactics

Whatever the message and whomever the messenger is, how should it be delivered? Here’s where that preference for short form and video comes in to play. The data is clear and is largely consistent with marketing and communications best practices, so we won’t dwell on this tactic for long.

Still, it’s worth noting that the results reinforce the value of brief videos, delivered on a regular basis. People are looking at short-form news a few times a week. They strongly prefer video over audio and text. Therefore, they’re primed for that style of communication when it comes time to look at health information.

But remember that, despite the preference for short-form content, there’s a place for long-form. Those quick hit pieces can be backed up by deeper materials for those who want more. Fox noted that there is always a need for multiple channels. The survey, she said, reminds us that “People will still read a good story. Not everything has to be three paragraphs long. There’s a market there for deep content, as long as it’s well-written, well-researched and thoughtful.”

Touchpoints

By that, we mean experience. Consider the “body language” of an organization and the experience it offers. “Perception comes down to experience,” McNeil said.

The right words at the right time are important but not remotely sufficient. More significant is creating a good experience at every stage of the patient and employee journey through the organization. She referred to the survey data as “a callback to how we show up with patients and consumers, with employees and physicians, every single time.”

Remember that a sizeable portion of the population either is open-minded or wants to be perceived as open-minded. Remember, almost 40 percent of survey respondents said they had changed their opinion in the past year based on an opposing viewpoint. Both demonstrate sensitivity to social norms.

Therefore, those leading communications for provider organizations should be encouraged to keep up with efforts to persuade – whether the issue is public health measures or service line changes.

The key is to build those messages into bite-sized, emotionally compelling nuggets that can be easily delivered through personal relationships far away from the PSAs and media campaigns. Then, as the door is cracked wider, have ready more in-depth information that will build momentum towards the end goal rather than put people into vapor lock through confusion, defensiveness and decision paralysis.

Remember: Every opportunity to back the story up by a personal, positive and comfortable experience serves as a deposit in the bank.

“No presentation with vast amounts of data will be palatable enough to make someone change their mind,” said Hicks. “It has to be the relationship that does that.”

Closing Thoughts

Where’s Local Media In All This?

A key finding of our survey was that local news is not dead. What should healthcare providers do with that? Our Jarrard Inc. team has some thoughts on the state of the media:

  • Generalist Reporters. There’s a wide variation in local TV reporting. Many reporters are doing their best on limited budgets and lack of resources needed to specialize in healthcare, business, etc. As you work to form meaningful, educating relationships with the editorial staff or news director, work hard to translate and put the news into context for them.”
  • Relationship Building. Like anything, building that relationship takes time. Meet with the reporter or news director to talk through key issues and serve in that translator role. Ongoing, long-form conversations build a personal relationship and give the reporter a vested interest. Make them feel a partner in serving the community. Professional responsibility means journalists will want to know that they’ve done their homework, looked at both sides and appropriately simplified complex information so it’s available to the public. You can be an asset in this process.
  • Beware the Dark Side. We’re talking about the push for ratings, sensationalization. Provider organizations interacting with TV reporters need to be aware of details like sweeps week, the four times each year when ratings are calculated. Though it’s not necessarily a negative, Muck Rack’s 2022 State of Journalism survey found that reporters say having a subject connected to a trending story was the best way to make a story shareable. Similarly, local reporters are often working to move up to a bigger market. Most are doing that by doing great work and telling important stories well. But there are, as with anything, exceptions to that generalization. Ratings will be in the back of the reporter’s mind. Layer on top of that the need to tell stories in 30-90 seconds and there’s a risk of sensationalizing.

Want more specifics on how reporters want to be pitched? Here are a few very tactical stats from the Muck Rack State of Journalism report:

4 Average number of beats each journalist covers

84 % Journalists who consider academic experts credible sources

66% Journalists who consider CEOs credible sources

4
Average number of beats each journalist covers
84
Journalists who consider academic experts credible sources
66
Journalists who consider CEOs credible sources
94
Reporters citing direct emails as preferred way to be pitched

Questions about how to communicate more effectively with the audiences that matter? We can help.

Learn about our campaign approach to communications

Subscribe to Jarrard Insights & News

Name(Required)

Jarrard Phillips Cate & Hancock, Inc. Continues Record Growth In 2022

Firm News

Firm adds to roster to better guide healthcare organizations through post-pandemic transformation

To keep pace with consistent client growth, the national healthcare strategic communications firm Jarrard Phillips Cate & Hancock has added 11 new staff members in the first four months of the year, according to President and CEO David Jarrard.

Growth occurred across all three client advisory practices and the firm’s professional services team. Headlining the new talent are Jason Poteet, vice president of business development and Abby McNeil, vice president in the firm’s National and Academic Health System practice.

Poteet joins Jarrard Inc. with more than two decades of experience in performance improvement, revenue cycle and revenue growth strategy. Previously, he served as a client solutions leader within the healthcare provider vertical of the global technology companies Wipro and NTT Data.

McNeil is a seasoned marketing and communications expert with an extensive track record helping healthcare brands engage employees and grow market share. Immediately prior to joining the firm, she oversaw corporate communication and public affairs for CHRISTUS Health, including leading their COVID-19 response.

“These are highly-experienced, strong additions to our team,” Jarrard said. “Jason’s background helping healthcare clients identify new avenues of opportunity and strategic growth dovetail perfectly with the goals for our firm as we ourselves evolve and grow. Abby’s track record in helping provider organizations navigate the historically difficult imperatives of the past two years demonstrates her creativity, nimbleness and shared commitment to our mission to make healthcare better.”

In addition to Poteet and McNeil, the number and breadth of the new hires reflects an increasing demand for long-term strategic planning and communications engagements among health services companies, hospitals and health systems.

“While most of the operational challenges borne out of the pandemic have receded, a new wave of pressure is creating uncertainty for healthcare provider organizations,” Jarrard said.

Those pressures include the end of COVID-19 relief funds, the shortage of healthcare workers and recruiting challenges, increasingly tense negotiations between payers and providers and rising costs as part of the inflation seen across the US economy.

“All of these challenges are linked, yet each one has a distinct set of features that must be addressed,” added Jarrard. “Solving for the future is very much a matter of ensuring each leg of the stool is in place operationally, and then communicating about each element of change in a way that bolsters support for the organization both internally and externally.”

Jarrard Inc.’s new team members add to the firm’s ability to be extraordinarily responsive to client needs and the rapidly shifting healthcare landscape, while also helping broaden the depth of specialist expertise available to provider clients. Additional new hires are:

Meg Crowley, senior managing advisor, Regional Practice. Crowley was most recently assistant director of communications at Duke University, where she gained a reputation for developing compelling content for diverse needs and audiences. Crowley also spent time in media relations for a public policy think tank.

Angela MacDonald, senior managing advisor, National and Academic Health Systems Practice. MacDonald is an expert in organizational integration, with a career that spans higher education, law and Catholic healthcare. Prior to joining Jarrard Inc., MacDonald served in multiple roles within the Mission Integration Department of CHRISTUS Health.

Liz Nix, senior managing advisor, National and Academic Health Systems Practice. Nix joined Jarrard Inc. from Vanderbilt University Medical Center where she served in multiple roles, most recently as a learning and development leader, but also including facilities planning and management.

Alison Panella, senior managing advisor, National and Academic Health Systems Practice. Panella focuses on internal engagement, strategy development and operational support. She achieved these skills in part during her eight years at Interactive Forums, Inc. a strategic marketing and research firm.

Hannah Boggs, senior advisor, National and Academic Health Systems Practice. Boggs brings years of experience in program management, talent acquisition, internal communications and internal assessments across healthcare and corporate entities. She came to Jarrard from Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, where she was a program coordinator in the Department of Medical Social Sciences.

Nina Buckhalter, senior advisor, Health Services Practice. Prior to joining Jarrard Inc., Buckhalter served as a content strategist for a marketing agency serving nonprofit organizations. There, she developed effective social media and content strategies to position clients as thought leaders as they addressed core barriers to healthcare.

Katie Collins, advisor, National and Academic Health Systems Practice. Collins most recently served in various roles at Performance Health, a sports medicine and rehab company. As a member of the marketing team there, Collins spearheaded data analysis projects and provided project management and change management strategies for internal team members.

Emily Magnifico, project manager, Growth Services Team. An experienced marketer, Magnifico has an extensive background in building and optimizing project management practices. Most recently, she served as project manager for marketing and branding agency Anchour.

Luke Levenson, copywriter, Growth Services Team. Levenson brings a reporter’s eye to the nuanced writing necessary for healthcare marketing and strategic communications. He joined Jarrard from Premier Productions, where he served as a media buyer. Prior to that, he was a publicist for a major music label and freelance journalist.

Subscribe to Jarrard Insights & News

Name(Required)

A First Quarter to Remember…Or Forget

Orange text that reads "The Quick Think" over a kaleidoscope-patterned background

Note: This piece was originally published over the weekend in our Sunday newsletter. Want content like this delivered to your inbox before it hits our blog? Subscribe here.

The Big Story: UnitedHealth Posts Higher Quarterly Revenue, Raises Earnings Guidance

“The healthcare and health-insurance giant, the first industry heavyweight to report first-quarter results, posted double-digit revenue growth at both its Optum and UnitedHealth care units.”

Must be nice.

The State of Play

While insurance companies appear to be doing well, our hospitals are staring at some bleak Q1 numbers. Why? Well, consider that:

  • COVID-19 relief funds are drying up.
  • Patient volumes for many services are below pre-pandemic levels and may or may not recover in Q2.
  • Demand for staff exceeds supply. When there’s not enough staff, some patients needing care can’t get it (feeding the problem above).
  • The cost of the staff hospitals do have is through the roof and unsustainable.
  • Inflation is clocking in at 8.5 percent. That’s producing multiple ripples. Cost-conscious patients may be reluctant to spend to get the care they need – especially for preventative care. And staff pay raises are unlikely to keep up with the cost of living, making retention all the more difficult.

What to do? A traditional response by health systems to these pressures would be to cut costs through layoffs or service closures.

  • But many systems already cut services and staff deeply during the pandemic. Few today will let go of staff in such a competitive marketplace.
  • The high cost of care is a barrier to all but the most urgent patient volumes. This only becomes more acute during periods or massive inflation, when, pound for pound, everything costs more – whether ground beef or gasoline or medical equipment.

One possible source of at least partial relief is renegotiated payer contracts. We’re hearing from more provider organizations in our network that they’re considering – or undertaking – new negotiations. Payers will likely respond aggressively, and with increasing tension between the two, patients are at risk of getting caught in the middle. And that’s never good.

However, some payers are willing to come to the table in recognition that we’re all in this together and the distinction between payer and provider is merging. Where those constructive conversations can take place, it serves as an example of the wider opportunity for partnerships of all stripes – which also include joint ventures with private equity back partners, shared-service alliances with other systems or outright sales for scale and financial stability.

For health system communicators, get ready for change. Again. Here’s how to brace for it:

  • Be at the table. Find the time and the path to being part of the strategic conversations happening in your health system today, across executive leadership, operations, finance, legal and government relations.
  • Know your story. In times of stress or change, leadership teams can have multiple stories they want to tell. The perspective of communications chiefs is invaluable to helping leadership stay focused on the core messages while maintaining the agility to respond to the changing environment.
  • Be responsibly transparent. Times are still hard. Change will continue. Know that you will need to tell this difficult story and explain some hard truths to the community you serve. But it’s better that you tell the story first than letting someone else twist it for their own purposes.
  • Have coffee with a reporter. Build relationships with local media as much as you can. Reporters these days often have wide mandates and cover a lot of topics. That means the nuance inherent to big issues facing the local hospital or health system isn’t always reflected in coverage. Be a year-round resource for local business reporters who may have a byline on the story about your next payer battle.
  • Be ready for the fight. The stakes have increased, and payers are pushing hard. Provider organizations want to focus on delivering care, not arguing about money. But that, unfortunately, is necessary.
  • Keep the conversation going. Whereas payers are constantly negotiating contracts – it’s their business model – any given hospital is only doing that every few years. Ensure your team is keeping an eye on trends, communicating to stakeholders about what you’re doing as an organization and updating your playbook for the next negotiation.
  • Don’t accept a turnkey approach. Payers are working from a thick, and broadly consistent playbook. Still, every story, every negotiation, every community served looks a bit different. As payers are becoming increasingly aggressive, you need to ensure that your plan reflects your unique needs.
  • Be grounded. Bring everything back to your mission, your calling and your duty to serve.

This piece was originally published over the weekend in our Sunday Quick Think newsletter. Fill out the form to get that in your inbox every week.

Navigating the C-Suite: Beyond “Go Back and Write About it”

A long, 18-person office table in the middle of a conference room with floor-to-ceiling windows and light beaming through

This week we were honored to help produce a full panel discussion with four top healthcare marketing and communications leaders discussing team dynamics and navigating the C-suite. It’s a conversation around how marketing leaders and their teams can use their seat at the table to not just be scribes for their hospital or health system but to serve as strategic leaders and advisors.

The team includes:

  • Susan Alcorn, of counsel here at Jarrard who previously spent time as chief communications officer at Rochester Regional Health and Geisinger Health System
  • Beth Toal, vice president of communications and marketing at St. Luke’s Health System in Idaho
  • Michael Knecht, chief marketing and communications officer at RWJ Barnabas Health in New Jersey
  • Gayle Sweitzer, vice president of marketing and corporate communication at the University of Kansas Hospital

This conversation is a prelude to a panel discussion the group will be having on Tuesday, May 17th at the Health Care Marketing and Physician Strategy Summit (HMPS) in Salt Lake City. For more on the event, check out healthcarestrategy.com.

Be sure to listen and subscribe to the High Stakes Podcast.

Photo by Benjamin Child on Unsplash

DigitaLee 5: DigitaLee: Healthcare Cybersecurity, Reputation Management & Digital ROI, pt. 1

Orange text that reads "The Digital Future of Healthcare" with smaller text at the bottom saying "DigitaLee with Lee Aase" on a navy blue background

Welcome to DigitaLee, the podcast for healthcare marketers, where we look at the digital news, tools, tips and tricks for effective healthcare communications. This week, David Shifrin and digital healthcare pioneer and now healthcare entrepreneur Lee Aase are looking at healthcare cybersecurity, reputation management – should you keep it in-house or outsource? And the first of a two-part miniseries on digital ROI for healthcare providers. The question is how to measure ROI and how that differs between larger and smaller provider organizations.

Listen and subscribe to the podcast, or read the transcript below.

Episode Links

Read the transcript

David Shifrin: Alright, Lee good to see you again. The story that we’re going to kick this off with is from Healthcare Dive titled ‘On high alert’: Hospitals wary of cyber threats from Russia-Ukraine war.It’s a kind of an odd one because you wouldn’t really necessarily expect there to be sort of a healthcare angle to the cyber warfare that we know is taking place.

And frankly, day to day, we don’t even know where this, where the invasion is going and what’s really happening there. So, there’s so much uncertainty, but we have seen kind of similar stories here and there that, Russia seems to be active and you never know where somebody, whether it’s them or anybody else is going to show up.

And frankly, just a week ago, a buddy of mine who’s a PA and he said, you know, we got a ransomware attack and they’re asking for a bunch of cash and we’re locked down and we’re back to paper. It happens all the time, in peaceful times and in bad times. so what should provider organizations be thinking about when it comes to cybersecurity?

Lee Aase: Yeah. I think it just really highlights that cybersecurity should always be a priority because it doesn’t matter where it came from. The Russia, Ukraine conflict might be a precipitating thing. If the United States is involved on the Ukrainian side and if Russia retaliates or wants to find ways of gumming up the American system then yeah, that could be one precipitating event for why hospitals would be under threat, but there’s lots of other threats. There’s always bad actors that are out there. And I think it just really highlights the importance of good processes, good hygiene, good just taking basic security measures. The key one that I think was highlighted in this article and that I’ve felt is really important as well is two-factor authentication. Because anybody can steal passwords or you can guess a password, but with the two-factor authentication, when you have to have a timely provision of that second code, like within 60 seconds, that’s the kind of thing that’s going to be super helpful in heading this stuff off.

I think the other part is just really good training with staff. Helping them to be alert to phishing scams, for instance. I know back in my days at Mayo Clinic, we would have authorized phishing simulations that would be sent out by our IT security team and, you know, it got to be a game where you’d say, yeah, I think that’s one of those when you had forwarded it.

But occasionally you would forward those suspicious emails and they’d say, yeah, that was a real threat, that was really something. And having people be on the alert for it is really important. And yeah, then just the training, the alerting people that this is something that you have to be aware of and have to be careful.

David Shifrin: So you mentioned, you talked about training, Lee. And one of the, one of the quotes that stood out to me in the article was from a chief technology officer at a cybersecurity company talking about how there’s a huge amount of turnover, which is just not…something that I’m not familiar with, the IT world, but anything there when it comes to personnel?

Lee Aase: Yeah, I think it’s really, I noticed that in the article as well, that when there’s…if you have turnover in your key staff that are responsible for these security initiatives that you do put yourself more at risk. And yeah, I think we’ve seen, whether it’s because of people getting terminated because of non-vaccine compliance or whatever, that there have been various reasons for that. But there was the great resignation that everyone was talking about as well. So I think having some lack of continuity among staff responsible in these areas could also put systems at risk.

David Shifrin: Lee let’s use that to roll into the second section which isn’t exactly a platform, but in thinking about both cybersecurity, but then also reputation and the reputational damage that can occur certainly if a breach happens or any other kind of crisis hits.

And we’re talking about the turnover and just the resources that different organizations have. How do you think about what you keep in house? What you outsource, where you draw the line, how do you manage the limited resources that different organizations have recognizing that this is going to vary if it’s an independent community hospital versus a large national healthcare system.

Lee Aase: Larger health systems do have a lot more resources. They also have a bigger footprint. They also have a lot more angles, a lot more service lines that they’re trying to be ranking highly in and where people are expressing their opinions. So it scales up, the need scales up with the size of the organization as well.

I think for any of them, it depends on their stance toward using one of these platforms or doing it on their own, depends on what other priorities they have, where they need to be devoting their resources and what capacity they have. My general predisposition has been to say that people need to have ownership of their online reputation and that the service line folks or individuals who are concerned about what happens when people Google them that the best thing they can do is…

To have an active social media presence. To have an active digital presence that will tend to be over time ranked highly in Google and will show up effectively. So I guess depending on what resources people are willing to put into this they can either outsource it and try to have things managed that way, or they can take a more active and organic role in managing their reputation.

I am just naturally I guess predisposed to the latter solution and to really authentically engaging in these platforms, but can definitely understand how people say, yeah, I just want to write a check or I want to have somebody else take over that day-to-day responsibility because I have other priorities that I need to deal with.

David Shifrin: For our insight this week, Lee, we’re going to have a two-part miniseries. And in talking to my colleagues here at Jarrard, they sort of flagged that they had some conversations with you about digital ROI. And being the content mercenary that I am, I thought it sounded really useful for our audience.

And so this is going to be pivoting away from reputation and cybersecurity and everything, but the conversation is about digital ROI. And the first question for today is what your take is on measuring ROI and how that differs between teams, marketing folks at local hospitals versus at larger health systems or different corporate entities.

Lee Aase: Yeah. I was saying, you know, at the smaller health systems or the local hospitals, you typically have marketers who need to be much more of a jack of all trades, need to be much more nimble and resourceful, much more like MacGyver in trying to get results.

And that has upsides and has downsides. The one of the absolute downsides is the lack of, general lack of resources. But the second then is the priority that puts on and the premium that puts on that resourcefulness, on that creativity, on experimentation.

When I was a…so this would be back in 2009, I published a document that I call my 35 theses on social media. And there were three of these that kind of relate here. And I think that’s what I was talking with our Jarrard folks about is that, number 17, social media freedom, in an ordinary sense of the word.

And that was true back then, anyway. Now, you definitely have to have some money to be on these platforms typically to be able to get the reach. But then the second one that was related to that is that I, as in I in the ROI equation approaches zero, ROI approaches infinity. If you keep getting the I smaller and smaller, that means you don’t have to show as much in terms of benefit for it too be, “Wow. That really works.” So the fact that in all these platforms that if you’re trying to MacGyver it, and that was the 19th thesis is MacGyver is the model for social media success, that you have to be creative and you can get the proof of concept really pretty easily, or at least you can experiment with things to say, So does this work or not?” without risking a whole lot. And that’s actually some of the benefit of the smaller organizations, are in the way they can be thinking about this as that, you know, when you’re working on behalf of a large, resourced organization or with the super-strong reputation, there’s more risk associated with it.

The risk/reward thing in the equation is a little bit skewed in those cases, because what if it doesn’t work? On the other hand, if you’re in a smaller organization you have a lot more upside potential, and also because these digital tools have fewer resources needed to do something that’s actually pretty solid that is a reasonably high quality, like these digital mics, these add-ons that you can get for your phone and to be able to really reduce the cost of production. It lets you try things and then prove their benefit, which can help you make the case for more resources.

David Shifrin: Great. Okay. So next time then we will talk about how healthcare marketers position digital programming to justify that ROI, which is a clear extension of this, and you’ve already talked about that a bit, but I’m looking forward to that conversation next time.

Comprehensive Re-Evaluation

Orange text that reads "The Quick Think" over a kaleidoscope-patterned background

Note: This piece was originally published over the weekend in our Sunday newsletter. Want content like this delivered to your inbox before it hits our blog? Subscribe here.

The Big Story: The CDC will undergo a comprehensive re-evaluation, the agency’s director said.

“The move follows an unrelenting barrage of criticism regarding the agency’s handling of the pandemic over the past few months. ‘The lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic, along with the feedback I have received inside and outside the agency over the past year, indicate that it is time to take a step back and strategically position the CDC to support the future of public health,’” Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky said.

What it means for provider organizations:

(3-minute read)

The story of the CDC matters because:

  • A good strategic review never goes out of style (and it’s overdue at the CDC).
  • An “unrelenting barrage of criticism” is a strong indication that it is a good time to “step back,” as Walensky said, and evaluate what you do and how you do it.
  • Even if your organization has survived the pandemic without slings and arrows, it’s the right season for every healthcare voice to take a breath and candidly review the content and effectiveness of your communication efforts and course-correct as need be.

What happened: The CDC has been sharply accused of offering conflicting, inconsistent, confusing and politically charged messages that undermined the public’s trust in it during a global pandemic. And that’s putting it mildly.

Sometimes it was simply a matter of not clarifying that scientific findings and the realities of public health were changing rapidly, and the guidance needed to do the same. Sometimes it was a matter of public health authorities being a bit too definitive about what was known, which became problematic when the current understanding or best practices changed.

Regardless: This was a moment for public health to shine. Coordinating a national response to a pandemic requires a coordinated communications plan. The CDC didn’t completely fail, but it certainly didn’t come through with perfect marks. Hence the “comprehensive re-evaluation.” Good for them.

Therefore: If you’ve come under fire, are under fire, think you might come under fire or simply want to prepare to avoid the mistakes that brought the CDC under fire (we think this list now includes everyone), here are points to ponder as you bring your team around the table.

  • Mission must be first. In the race to move quickly, the agency seems to have lost the connection to its mission – not in practice but in how it’s communicated. They were still “conducting science” – incredible science, we might add – and “providing health information.” But that work wasn’t tied tightly enough to the overarching story of how the agency was trying to fight the pandemic. It wasn’t that the information was bad or misleading but that it wasn’t connected to a clear story that people could follow and so it sounded bad or misleading.
    • The question: Does the way in which we present information demonstrate – explicitly or implicitly – how that information connects back to our mission and goals?
  • Everyone in healthcare is transforming. You know the drill: the pandemic accelerated change in stunning ways. Even the CDC is taking a hard look at things and, hopefully, evolving as needed. But a hard look isn’t enough. Commitment to and action towards deep change is necessary. If you’re not already, it’s time to examine your systems and processes at every level from the system down to your team.
    • The question: Are our conversations leading to quantifiable commitment of resources towards necessary change or simply to more conversations?
  • Business as usual is gone. Everyone is transforming because expectations have changed and the spotlight’s grown brighter. Criticism of healthcare entities is everywhere, for reasons real and perceived. People are more aware of healthcare than ever before, which comes with pros and cons.
    • The question: Are we taking a defensive posture or are we listening and, critically, hearing people’s concerns so we can use that feedback to improve?
  • Good change is, well, good. The cliché is that the pandemic hasn’t so much exposed the flaws and opportunities for healthcare as it has distilled them. The other cliché is that healthcare providers can see that as an opportunity to build something better or to try and withdraw towards the old status quo. We all want the former, but human nature draws us towards the latter. It takes intention and energy to change thoughtfully and appropriately.
    • The question: How do we disrupt ourselves in uncomfortable ways in order to fulfill our mission and are we willing to do that?
  • Take time to save time. We suspect that some of the struggles the CDC faced were due to inertia – once the crisis ramped up it felt like there was no way to pause and take stock even though leaders were aware of the confusion and criticism. Still, it’s often better to slow down than double down.
    • The question: What might happen if we don’t slow down for a moment? Can we afford that outcome?

This piece was originally published over the weekend in our Sunday Quick Think newsletter. Fill out the form to get that in your inbox every week.

Vaught Verdict

Orange text that reads "The Quick Think" over a kaleidoscope-patterned background

Note: This piece was originally published over the weekend in our Sunday newsletter. Want content like this delivered to your inbox before it hits our blog? Subscribe here.

The Big Story: Healthcare workers fear for the future after ex-Vanderbilt nurse found guilty in 2017 death of patient

“A local trial focused on a former Vanderbilt University Medical Center nurse has sparked nationwide interest. RaDonda Vaught was found guilty on Friday of criminally negligent homicide, after accidentally giving a patient a fatal dose of the wrong medication. ‘I’m terrified that I’m now in a profession where, God forbid, I do make a mistake,’ said one nurse outside of the courtroom.”

Where We Are Today

2-minute read

That quote serves as an intense summary of the concern felt by caregivers across the country, and it adds another layer of pressure on provider organizations already struggling to fill nursing roles. A joint statement by the American Nurses Association and Tennessee Nurses Association says, “The criminalization of medical errors is unnerving, and this verdict sets into motion a dangerous precedent. Like many nurses who have been monitoring this case closely, we were hopeful for a different outcome. It is a sad day for all of those who are involved, and the families impacted by this tragedy.”

The whole situation is awful. The tragedy of Charlene Murphey’s death and everything surrounding it. The worry this adds to an already exhausted healthcare workforce, many of whom were considering their future in the profession before the verdict. And it adds to the trouble that no provider organization needs with staffing the number one concern across the country.

We will continue to watch and discuss this situation and potential fallout. It’s a tense moment that will further strain the relationship between staff and administration. It’s also one that could exacerbate existing challenges both for individuals and healthcare institutions. For now, a few brief thoughts for leaders of provider organizations:

  • Your radar is on. Keep it up. This verdict and the circumstances surrounding it will reverberate for a long time. Have an ear out for how it’s being discussed – by the public, by healthcare professionals, by other stakeholders within the industry.
  • Your nurses are talking about the situation and your organization needs to hear what they’re saying so you can understand the concerns. You know your organization the best, so be present in whatever way makes the most sense for your culture. But be there – whatever that means for you – to hear from your nurses.
  • Bring everyone around the table. Clinical leadership, operations, legal, HR. Have conversations about how the organization’s mission, vision, values – as well as its commitment to supporting caregivers in a culture of safety – should be applied in this moment. You’re likely to already be having some of these conversations. We encourage you to ensure that everyone is represented and that the discussions are rooted in your mission to serve and to care.
  • Begin looking at how your organization can support and protect your nurses from an operational standpoint. Work with your team to identify areas where things can be tightened up to limit the chance an error will occur, or where an error is even an option. Nurses are under so much pressure, any place where that pressure can be reduced and safety improved is worth a look.
  • When appropriate, let your nurses know what you’re doing and how you’re working to support them. Be clear and honest about your organization’s position and the thoughts of leaders within the organization.
  • If you find yourself trying to say something but unsure of what it is, that probably means there’s more to learn. Go back to the start and listen some more.

This piece was originally published over the weekend in our Sunday Quick Think newsletter. Fill out the form to get that in your inbox every week.

Event Recap: Healthcare Private Equity at HPE Miami 2022

Orange text that reads "The Quick Think" over a kaleidoscope-patterned background

Note: This piece was originally published over the weekend in our Sunday newsletter. Want content like this delivered to your inbox before it hits our blog? Subscribe here.

The Big Story: Crafting the next-generation value creation playbook in healthcare private equity

“While the pandemic has disrupted demand for certain healthcare sectors, it has accelerated innovation and provided an opportunity for investment in other areas. In particular, there’s been rapid growth in virtual and home-based care delivery, along with the adoption of technology platforms.”

What We Heard at HPE Miami 2022

(2-minute read)

The opportunities and rapid growth were big topics at HPE Miami 2022, but the conversation didn’t end there. In fact, those were just starting points. The annual event, hosted and produced by global law firm McDermott Will & Emery, attracted more than 700 attendees from corners of the industry spanning investment, banking, legal and supporting services (including at least three strategic communications pros).

If we had to pick one word to summarize the trends we heard, it would probably be “leveling.” Investors remain optimistic and active, yet there was a sense that the industry is taking a bit of a breath. Here’s what that looks like:

Global disruption = wait-and-see.

  • There was concern about possible continued or exacerbated inflation and added pressure on the healthcare workforce, but beyond that the crystal ball stayed on the shelf.
  • Why? With Russia’s horrific invasion of Ukraine casting shadows, attendees were wary of looking too far into the future. “We don’t know” isn’t a particularly compelling take, but it’s a reasonable one in the face of today’s deep human concerns and economic volatility.

Plateauing pace.

  • Across the board, 2021 was an explosive year for healthcare PE investing, with several firms noting that they made a record number of investments in promising new technologies and unheralded opportunities to improve healthcare.
  • Yes, but: The result was a rise in valuations that attendees agreed was unsustainable. A common refrain was that 2022 will be a year of “refocusing” and “rebasing,” with valuations leveling off. One attendee suggested that this year will provide a “Zen” moment for healthcare investing.

Many paths to a deal.

  • While 2022 is expected to breathe, that doesn’t mean there won’t be opportunity. Between new family offices, European firms opening offices in the US, special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs)* and a significant reservoir of capital that firms may now be ready to deploy, there are more sources of funds than ever.
  • Plus: Transactions can go through faster, thanks to an accelerated transaction process brought on by the pandemic that shows no sign of reverting. Some bankers said they closed deals last year having never met the client or the buyer in person at all.
  • *Though still a reasonably popular financing mechanism, we heard rumblings that interest in SPACs is cooling. SEC Chairman Gensler has pushed his agency to come up with new, tighter rules surrounding SPACs, and the investment community is watching closely to see where it all lands.

Patients first.

  • As for what’s considered an attractive investment, attendees are continuing to keep their eye on anything that makes patient engagement better, faster, more convenient and less costly.
  • Think: Care in the home, outpatient settings or virtually, interoperability, value-based care and physician specialty roll-ups – to name a few.

Show, don’t tell.

  • There was a level of open pragmatism as the PE community discussed moving from investments based on the art of what’s possible back to those with defined execution and practicality on their way to creating value and improving delivery of care.
  • Put another way: Investing in what companies with a clear path to delivery vs. liberal promises to deliver.

Propping up people.

  • One attendee uniquely framed it this way: The healthcare services sector is fundamentally talent management.
  • Technology, care delivery models and process efficiency may get the headlines. But at its core, it’s people providing a service – a profound and personal service – to other people. Individuals doing that work are mission-driven, financial compensation isn’t the end-all-be-all, and labor is the number one challenge for healthcare today.
  • Therefore: In 2022 and beyond, health services companies must build meaningful cultures that make employees and clinicians proud to work there.

The last word.

  • The event itself was extraordinarily well-received by attendees. Here’s Jarrard Inc. partner and chief development officer Anne Hancock Toomey:
  • “McDermott did a phenomenal job creating an environment where people got to be together for the first time in two years and did it in a safe and fun way – outside in the fresh air and sunshine. More than 700 attendees from across healthcare investing. There was buoyancy among the crowd. Just so thrilled to be in person again.”

This piece was originally published over the weekend in our Sunday Quick Think newsletter. Fill out the form to get that in your inbox every week.