Skip to main content
Category

High Stakes

In High Stakes, Quick Think, Strategic Positioning

The Heart-Pumping Scoop on Stories

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: Storytelling Makes Hearts Beat As One

Turns out Disney and Amazon were on to something with their virtual watch parties. Want to sync up with friends? You can do it without ever laying eyes on them. A group of biomedical engineers, psychologists and neuroscientists found that people’s heart rates “rise and fall in unison” when experiencing the same story, even when they’re in separate locations.

(No subscription to The Wall Street Journal? Here’s another option. Or, if you’re feeling ambitious, here’s the original study.)

What it Means for Your Health System

We know. “Storytelling” has become so much a part of the marketing and communications jargon that it’s easy to skate right past it. There’s an entire industry of speakers, consultants and tools focused on helping organizations get their message across. We’re doing it right now.

And yes, this new study itself represents the perfect story: hard data about a compelling subject, wrapped in a romantic narrative. Elegant science showing that people in distinct locations can be brought together in a profound way through something so simple. This paper simultaneously proves and embodies the point.

Funny thing is, we came across this study while working through your feedback from last week’s survey on misinformation. (See our Special Report dropping next week.) Your comments reiterated the effectiveness of storytelling when it comes to misinformation. Because what we’re seeing today are dry facts presented in absolute terms by white coats on one side, with clever, substance-free narratives (some might say, “Lies”) appealing to emotion on the other. People are dying because the clever narratives have done a better job claiming to connect dots and explain the world than the dry facts. In effect, they’ve made hearts beat together as one. As Jarrard Inc. Partner Kim Fox asked rhetorically, “What’s easier to absorb – a bold headline or a list of data points from a scientific study?”

In other cases, like many of those we’ve highlighted in this newsletter (Power to the Patients, INHOSPITABLE, the Lown Institute report on community benefits, criticism of healthcare M&A), there’s legit data backing up a deeply emotional appeal centered on individual harm at the hands of a big, unaccountable villain.

To be clear: It’s not misinformation that sells. It’s the order and emotional release provided by misinformation that gets people to buy in. Facts be damned. But if you have facts to back the story? Even better. Think of it this way: Story is the Trojan Horse that lets the data in.

So then, how do we use this for good? Narrative is an effective structure to get a point across; are you using it for what you need to accomplish?

…

Are you sure?

In our experience working with clients across the healthcare spectrum, there’s a tendency to drift to one extreme or the other. Human nature, right? Providers either showcase the Hallmark movie story or the bar chart and trendline. An effective campaign, though, lies in finding Both/And. Marry critical health information with a great narrative and deliver it through a messenger with high credibility. The result is this video from Miami Children’s Hospital. Dr. Burke gives a tour of an emotionally fraught situation while dropping in vital facts like his team’s certifications and experience so subtly you barely notice it’s happening.

We’ll challenge you to take a moment and really evaluate how your team approaches storytelling. Again, it’s easy to pay lip service because it’s so ingrained in marketing 101. Don’t let that happen. There is powerful, evidence-based practice taking place across your organization every day. Patients are leaving your facilities better off than when they arrived. Your care teams are using cutting-edge technology to care for people. Sometimes, they’re ingeniously developing new techniques on the fly because that’s what it takes to save a life. Don’t skip past that. Look down at the numbers and find the trendline. Then, look up at the people walking by who represent that trendline in real life. That’s the marriage of data and story.

Let’s simplify it even further. Maybe we’re taking this too far but think about how your hospital operates and talks about its work.

On the one hand: Is there anything going on that would lead a group of people, watching on TV, to simultaneously sit up and say, “Ohhh, that’s bad”?

On the other: Are you showcasing the good work you’re doing in a way that would lead a group of people, watching on TV, simultaneously sit up and cheer?

We always say that if you don’t tell your story, someone will do it for you. That’s the risk. And that’s the opportunity.

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.

In Change Management, High Stakes, Quick Think, Strategic Positioning

Mad Dash to Digital Turns to a Trot

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: One big reason healthcare access is hard

“Healthcare brands invest enormous sums of money in marketing campaigns, websites, and apps that will never be effective until a consumer can overcome the data barriers to healthcare access.” And that deficit could have ripple effects as consumers get frustrated with providers.

What it Means for Your Health System

(2-minute read, 15-minute podcast)

Providers are juggling more challenges than ever… ICUs full of the unvaccinated. Media coverage of questionable billing practices. Disruptors from tech and retail growing their investments and pushing the envelope. The ongoing push-pull narrative regarding the effects of consolidation. Breaking through the perpetual avalanche of bad news to highlight the good is no easy task for marcom pros today.

The frustration builds when big-name companies without a history of delivering care get rosy headlines, while traditional providers face seemingly endless scrutiny from the media, regulators and parts of the public. Scrutiny – warranted or not – then leads people weary of traditional healthcare to look for someone else to do it better. Enter a company like Amazon, which fits the bill because it knows people, what they want and how to get it to them. Not because it “knows healthcare.”

Healthcare organizations are certainly aware of the challenge. Providers ramped up their use of digital tools last year, moving towards a more patient-friendly system out of necessity. But the advance has slowed, according to a recent study. Providers who lose momentum are not only missing out on a chance to streamline care, but also to counter some of the negative press pointing fingers at those delivering it.

So then how to flip the script? How do you leverage the current moment, building trust and telegraphing a better future? Here are six patient-friendly questions to ask your organization to help ID areas to bolster or to brag about:

  • How are you making it simpler to receive care? This covers tools to seek, schedule and manage care. It starts with the table stakes that so many patients complain about but few providers get right – basics like online scheduling tools and check-ins. It extends to back-office functions like billing processes that affect the underlying efficiency of patients’ care. Anything to cut down on the number of disparate tools and to better integrate those you need.
  • Where are you providing care? A silver lining to the pandemic? The rise of alternative models of care. However, that means programs like telehealth and ambulatory surgery centers are no longer differentiators in 2021. (Yep, back to table stakes.) You’ll need to push a lot further to show what’s unique about your version of those offerings. Now if your organization is one of the few which have ramped up “advanced” models like hospital-at-home or mobile care, talk about those. A lot.
  • How are you targeting care for your specific community? Put your marketing cap on for this. Depending on geography, infrastructure and patient demographics, the same tool could either help or hinder a patient’s trust and comfort. Telehealth can make sense for different reasons: time saved fighting traffic, ability to seek care when you don’t have access to transportation, ease in scheduling, expanded hours and more. And those reasons can vary for an urbanite, a rural dweller, a family with small children, an elderly person, a blue collar worker, etc. Your marketing should be precise in what it says and in exactly whom it is targeting. People will trust you more if they see you offering services and communicating in ways that work for them.
  • How are you making it simpler to understand care? People don’t trust what they can’t understand. Now is a good time to scrub your communications materials for simplicity and to clearly define terms. If you want to take it up a level, look at how your organization trains patient-facing staff to ensure they’re communicating clearly and simply with patients. Always be asking, “Are we talking to consumers in a way that helps them make a good decision quickly?”
  • How are you making the financial process easier? So much of the scrutiny of hospitals today comes from questionable or downright bad billing practices. Merely setting up a simple billing portal will not negate the previous damage caused by suing patients over unpaid bills. However, setting expectations early on about things like financial responsibilities and billing process, tools and options, will go a long way in avoiding situations that are traumatic to patients and reflect poorly on your organization. Work with your front office and rev cycle teams to educate patients on the finances of healthcare, offer proactive communications about what they could owe and yes, give them easy ways to pay.
  • How are you improving access and health equity? Your mission is to provide the best possible care for the people in your community, which means that in some way everything you do comes back to access and equity. People are paying more attention to the issue than ever before. So are you. So talk about it. Northwell Health, for example, highlighted the importance of its new partnership with Walgreens for health equity. Other benefits like efficiency and convenience were framed as contributors to access and equity, rather than standalone features. That’s a playbook worth copying.

Want more? Check out the 15-minute conversation with Reed Smith, Jarrard Inc.’s VP of Digital Services.

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.

In Change Management, High Stakes, Kaleidoscope

DEI & Health Equity: More than Good Intentions

White text that reads "kaleidoscope" on a kaleidoscope-patterned background

Earlier this year, we at Jarrard published a special report on health equity and diversity, equity and inclusion work within healthcare providers. Separately, but roughly in parallel, a team at our parent firm, The Chartis Group, in partnership with the National Association of Health Services Executives, developed Leading While Black, a research piece on similar issues that includes a health equity maturity model for healthcare organizations.

Together, those pieces cover a huge amount of ground in some of the underlying issues, challenges, and also possible solutions for both delivering more equitable care to patients and also developing a more diverse and inclusive workforce. Now, with a bit of time having passed since publication, we wanted to revisit the topic and bring together the teams that produced them for some combined insight.

In this conversation, we spoke with LaTonya O’Neal and Mark Wenneker, MD, lead authors of the Chartis report, and James Cervantes, who helps lead our Kaleidoscope DE&I work here at Jarrard. You can listen to the podcast or read the transcript below.

(Be sure to get in touch and sign up for all of our thinking here.)

Read the Transcript

David Shifrin: Let’s jump in. And Mark, tell us just about some of the high-level structural challenges that healthcare organizations are dealing with today in terms of DE&I and structural racism.

Mark Wenneker: The first answer I would give around this is that healthcare organizations, and the healthcare industry, has been aware of ethnic and racial disparities in healthcare for decades. This isn’t a new problem. In the early part of my career, I published an article demonstrating that Black patients were less likely to receive important cardiovascular procedures than white patients. That was in the 1980s. That wasn’t the first piece of research that showed that. Just last week, the Journal of the American Medical Association published an entire issue on the challenges of disparities in healthcare access for ethnic and racial minorities. So this is not a new problem. To answer your question more directly, I think there’s a greater awareness now that healthcare organizations have around the importance of addressing inequity. Most healthcare organizations have a mission to serve their communities. And if they’re not addressing the reality that there are portions of their communities that are not receiving the same kinds of care, then they’re not fulfilling their mission.

LaTonya O’Neal: When we talk about the challenges that healthcare organizations really need to overcome to move the needle on health equity, there are five things to think about. One, it takes more than just good intentions and a stated purpose.

Two, moving the needle toward health equity has to start at the top with the organization’s leadership.

Three, intentional cultural change is essential. Organizations need to expect and empower every employee to take an active role in addressing health disparities.

Four, promoting health equity needs to take place both within the healthcare organization and in the community.

And five, organizations need meaningful data to inform, measure and facilitate change.

David Shifrin: LaTonya, talk about the importance of going beyond just good intentions, right? You know I think, I hope, that everyone would agree that good intentions aren’t enough. But what does that actually mean? What qualifies as good intentions and what qualifies as the work that needs to be done?

LaTonya O’Neal: When you talk about good intentions, you can’t just take steps only because it’s the right thing to do. Just because your heart’s in the right place doesn’t mean you get credit. I think the distinction is that the actual work that has to be done should be at the foundation of the organization’s mission.

And that has to be done… the work that has to be done there is really challenging, and it’s also broad. So implementing a single, specific program to address a certain issue is great, but you can’t stop there and declare that the work is done. It’s really an ongoing, continuous process. And some of the clients I’ve worked with have struggled because they do want to do the right thing, but there’s a vast gap between wanting to do the right thing, trying to do the right thing and actually doing the right thing.

So I think having good intentions is certainly a great place to start, but you have to put the steps in place to ensure that, one, the actions are going to be meaningful; two, that they’re going to be measurable; and then three, that they’re going to be sustainable.

James Cervantes: I think too what you’re referring to, LaTonya, is really cultural change, right? So it’s not just change that happens in one department or with one program or with one person who’s leading one initiative. I think what we’re seeing, and it sounds like you are as well, is that to really move the needle on health equity and become a more diverse, inclusive organization, for many of these systems, it requires a level of cultural change that, honestly, many to this point haven’t been willing to take.

So it certainly starts at the top, but it’s also finding a way to engage every employee, every leader, to have an active role in that cultural change and that journey in becoming better—for each other and for their community.

Mark Wenneker: I would follow up what James just said. LaTonya and I recently wrote an article that was published in The Governance Institute magazine that emphasized the criticality of leadership commitment and intentionality. So, good intentions have to translate to a commitment from the top, from the board, and a set of plans that are actionable and have resources behind them. And if I’m talking to an organizational leader who’s asking me about what they do or what they should do around addressing inequities and disparities, that would be the first question: do you have your board on board and do you have a plan?

David Shifrin: Let’s talk a little bit about what you’re talking about, Mark, with the specific plans and how you build… It’s the, what is it? The SMART framework? The… Of course now I can’t think what the acronym stands for. Measurable…something: Measurable, Actionable, Timely.

What does the S… anyway… Specific! So there have to be specific goals and plans, and then also the overarching communications and mindset, and really change management that has to take place at almost a human level. And so between our organizations, I think we’ve got a lot of those bases covered in how we operate in the work that we do with clients.

But talk back and forth a little bit about how you merge those two things together, specifically as it relates to DE&I work.

LaTonya O’Neal: Change management is tremendous. It is the thing that I think, no matter the initiative in an organization, that’s required. If you don’t have a good change management process in place, you’re probably not going to be as successful as quickly in whatever that initiative is—but certainly when you’re talking about diversity, equity and inclusion, because everyone’s coming in with their own thoughts, ideas, sentiments on diversity, equity and inclusion.

You’re asking folks to align to a common idea, a common culture that speaks around the idea that you’re not going to allow inequities to occur within your organization as employees, but also that you’re going to try to resolve those inequities within direct patient care. And so I think it’s a bit of a challenge in at least some of the organizations that I’ve spoken with, it’s… even if you set up that structure, without the change management component of it, you run the risk of that idea or that initiative being abandoned because there aren’t any steps in place to make sure that you have that sustainability.

If your three highest admitters are not on board, what’s the consequence to the organization if they decide they don’t want to practice in your organization anymore. I mean, that’s an extreme example, but those are the kinds of things that I think minimize the effectiveness of some of the programs that might be out there even with well-intentioned folks, is that if these folks are not on board with it, then we must abandon it because we can’t survive without them.

James Cervantes: I think that’s a really important point; it’s having that initial buy-in, and that may take time for some organizations to build. And then beyond that, it’s really creating the awareness about what we’re doing and why, and making sure that everyone understands what our intentions are.

That we have buy-in from the board, we have buy-in from our leaders and here’s why we’re doing it. I think what makes this so challenging as well is that race and inequity is personal for many, right? We’re not talking about rolling out a new electronic medical record. We’re talking about deeply rooted issues that are very personal, very complex, very sensitive.

And so where we’ve seen some organizations struggle is just the way that we talk about it in identifying the problem. And so, one thing that we’ve done for a health system is just develop a language word bank so that we have a common definition set around how we talk about diversity, equity and inclusion across our health system and with each other so that we can all agree on something. And that, we’ve found, really built some momentum and created a more safe place for those conversations to happen.

Mark Wenneker: One area that I think healthcare organizations… after there’s been a verbal commitment made at all levels, that they really can quickly start working on is measurement. You can’t change what you haven’t measured, and healthcare organizations can readily look to see whether there’s diversity in their workforce, to have that data.

They can begin if they’re not already looking at whether there’s differences in how they treat patients. The kinds of care that they received. Their access to services. Whether there are differences by racial and ethnic background. Those are things that can be looked at. And that’s where you can start and identify those areas where there might be the greatest opportunity.

LaTonya O’Neal: You’ve got to start by defining what “it” is, right? Before you even talk about putting in measurement you’ve got to know what it is you’re measuring. And I think that that’s a challenging thing to do. And I think if you don’t start with defining what it is you’re trying to solve for, and then establishing those metrics that you’re going to measure yourself up against, it’s just a lot of busy work.

David Shifrin: One more question before we get into some of the specific examples. In thinking about both the internal and external work… so, advancing this work inside the organization and developing a more diverse workforce and getting people rallied around change in diversity equity and inclusion, and then also doing things that are going to improve patient care and the relationship between the provider organization and the community that it serves.

I hope nobody would see those as two separate initiatives. But I think it can be difficult to really know how to bring them all together. So how do you all think about that as sort of a continuum under the same umbrella?

Mark Wenneker: David, while they all really fall under the umbrella of addressing disparities in care and access, they really are separate strategic initiatives in my mind. So, the activities and focus and resources that need to address social determinants of health are very different than what needs to get done to address access to a healthcare organization. And I think both are important. So, healthcare organizations need to spend time thinking about who their community partners are and what their role is in supporting the community’s efforts to address social determinants of health.

It may be purely resources. Money. Or it may be something more direct like providing staffing or support. But it’s a very different type of work.

James Cervantes: I would agree with that. I do see them as separate, but I do think they are interrelated. Especially for healthcare organizations in more small and rural communities, where oftentimes your workforce is an extension of the community. So, how you’re talking about equity, where it sits on your strategic priority plan, how it’s mentioned in your vision and values, I think speaks volumes to your workforce.

And what you’re doing proactively, externally, I think, also needs to mirror how you talk about it and how you treat your workforce internally. So I agree a hundred percent, I think they’re separate, but there are connection points because they all sort of ladder up to the same overall vision and values.

LaTonya O’Neal: Yeah, they’re separate but not mutually exclusive.

Mark Wenneker: Yeah, I think that’s a great point, James. Most healthcare organizations are the biggest employers in the communities that they serve. So you really can’t think about that completely separately. You’re absolutely right.

David Shifrin: Well, let’s talk through some specific examples. You are doing this work, you’re researching this. So let’s just kind of go around the room and talk about some of the folks that you see doing a really good job. Some of the unique things that are happening across the healthcare industry and ways that colleagues and peers can kind of take some of those lessons about the things that we’ve talked about.

LaTonya O’Neal: We did a panel. Mark referenced the paper that we wrote some months ago where we were talking about leading while black, addressing disparities in our healthcare communities. We did a panel with some esteemed senior executives from some of the largest healthcare organizations around the country.

And three things that struck me in their talking that I think is a good blueprint for how others might want to try to get at addressing the disparities and also some of the issues around, you know, just racism in general. One individual said, “The best way to know what’s happening in your community is to get out in your community and actually see for yourself what’s going on.”

Part of that could be through board representation, but the other part about that is leveraging the people that work in your organization to help you understand what’s really happening. One example that they gave was they invited one of the nurses to join a board meeting one day, just to talk about what was going on in the community.

And it really made a difference in helping the board understand what the real problems were. The other thing that they mentioned was the measurement, which we’ve spoken about already. That is putting together performance metrics that truly you can measure yourself against in order to know whether or not you’re succeeding or not.

And the third thing that really struck me, it kind of dovetails on the first one around knowing what’s going on in your community. But we had one leader talk about how they’d started creating traveling grocery stores in areas where there were food deserts, right?

So, a lot of the issues that were going on in their particular community had a simple problem of… and I say simple not in that it’s a simple problem but as straightforward a problem of… our folks are not getting the food that they need to stay healthy and to be able to thrive.

And so, they took it upon themselves to create these traveling grocery stores so that those individuals who couldn’t get out and get the food that they needed, they provided that service to the folks within that community. Other stories like that, of being creative about how do we serve our community in the way that our community needs to be served, it’s just very important in order to make sure that we’re actually addressing the root causes of the problems that we’re experiencing.

David Shifrin: LaTonya, keep going on that a little bit, if you would. Leadership recognizes the need to go out and understand what’s happening and what needs to be done. They make the commitment to go out. They go out—whether to the community or inside the organization.

What does it look like practically for a leader to step into that conversation and listen and extract the information that they can then take back and use?

LaTonya O’Neal: You know, it’s a great question. I know that at least with a couple of folks that we spoke with, they talked about how being a trusted leader in the community was one of the ways that they were able to actually even get people to share with them the needs that they were experiencing. And so, I think part of it is being present, being available, and not just coming in to be a speaking head, if you will, is the first way you do that.

And I think that listening to the teams that you have in your organization could be another way of doing that. It’s one thing to think that you’re going to be able to walk around the neighborhoods and knock door to door and have people to just share with you what’s going on. You’ve got to be creative in how you get that information, whether it be surveys, whether it be information you’re collecting when the patient is admitted into your service.

No panels… you’re really getting that real-world feedback. I guess the key point is not to assume that you know what the problem is.

Mark Wenneker: You know, it’s striking to me that a very close corollary of this importance of listening is, who is actually representing your organization to listen? And while I think we need all leaders, regardless of their background to be present—as LaTonya is saying—in the community, it is very important that organizations have leaders that reflect the backgrounds of their representative communities. And that’s not happening enough. Because I think the communities, when they see those leaders that have similar backgrounds, are going to feel more engaged. They’ll have more trust. And I also think the other piece of this around workforce diversity is if you have those opinions and experience brought into your organization, it’s important to also listen to your community and go out.

But having that representative thinking and experience within also helps you understand what needs to be done.

LaTonya O’Neal: And too, Mark, creating that safe space which we’ve talked a lot about in the past, you’ve got to create that safe space where your teams are comfortable enough to even bring those types of ideas forward.

James Cervantes: Along those lines of listening, one thing we did at Jarrard to help facilitate conversations like that—and this was for a large health system out West—is they knew that they wanted to leverage their clinicians and physicians who for the most part their workforce and even members of their communities trusted.

But some of the folks just weren’t sure how to have those conversations, what questions to be asking, how to dispel some of the myths. They have the clinical information, but it’s how you frame it. And so we created a couple of toolkits. One was really for internal ambassadors and clinicians to use within the organization, as they’re in meetings to just address some of the top topics head on and to dispel some of those myths. But more importantly, to your point, Mark and LaTonya, to just be available to answer questions. And to really hear what the concern is from some of these groups that were very reluctant to get the vaccine. And then the other toolkit was really more for community partners. So, how were they able to leverage their community partners to engage in thoughtful conversations outside of the walls of the medical center?

And I think from both of those efforts, sort of in parallel, they saw tremendous uptick in the number of folks that were coming to get the vaccine. And I think they just have a deeper sense of who their community is now in a way that a data point wasn’t able to provide before those conversations.

LaTonya O’Neal: Just to add onto that, we created a maturity model as part of the work that we did earlier in the year as a way to help hospitals take a hard look at themselves. To look in the mirror and say, “Where are we along this continuum of where we want to be to address these disparities and make sure that we are really serving our communities holistically?”

And there are lots of other tools out there that we’ve seen. Actually, through the work that we did with the National Association of Health Services Executives, they’ve got other resources as well. But, I think that’s really important. You’ve got to take a look in the mirror and understand where you are, ask yourself those questions, and be honest about where you really are. And then put a program in place to drive toward where it is you’re really trying to head. I think without that, it again is well-intentioned, but it’s certainly not going to move the needle in a way that’s going to be measurable and impactful.

David Shifrin: Okay. LaTonya, Mark, James, what did we miss? What do you want to chat about?

Mark Wenneker: You know, there’s… the only other thing I was thinking about in terms of topics, was this issue around, is there a business case to be made?

So, in our report, that we did in collaboration with NAHSE, we talked about one of the challenges that healthcare organizations are facing, which is the question about, “How do we invest in these important areas, given the challenges we’re facing financially—most acutely with the pandemic, but certainly in the long term?” And yes, those are real. Those are real issues. However, it’s important to understand that the societal impact of healthcare disparities from a financial standpoint is significant. A Kaiser Family Foundation report estimated that disparities contribute almost $100 billion dollars in excess medical costs to our society and $42 billion in lost productivity.

Now that’s not to say that healthcare organizations can always capture those savings by making investments, but I think it’s important that they in their planning think through how can they benefit financially in addition to morally, their moral commitments, as they proceed with this planning work.

LaTonya O’Neal: You know, Mark, that’s a great point demonstrating the return on the investment. So, even in our consulting work, there are a lot of things that are the right thing to do that are good for the organization but might not have a return on investment. When you think about health disparities, the readmission rates that happen with patients who are not able to care for themselves at home, or when you think about extra admissions just because patients are not able to make their regular physician visits and things like that.

I mean, there is not enough data yet. I think that this is again back to where we need to really create some good measurement vehicles. But the return on the investment of making these programs part of your organization’s internal fabric and culture is significant. And in my mind, at least in working in the revenue cycle space like I do, you think about admissions, hospital care and then the billing that happens on the back end. I’m sure that there could be a direct correlation between these programs and patients do in your organizations on a regular basis.

James Cervantes: I would add, too, going back to our point earlier about your workforce, the labor market is as tight as it ever has been. And so, how are you honoring your commitment to health equity and retaining the talent and bringing in top talent? And I think more people, especially younger generations, are driven by and inspired by organizations that do what they’re going to say that they do and fulfill those commitments to their community and to solving for health equity. So, I think there’s sort of the workforce element as well, from a business imperative.

In Change Management, High Stakes, Quick Think, Strategic Positioning

A Win for Patients…and Rural Providers

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: New study finds consolidation lowered mortality in rural hospitals

“Rural hospitals that merged with or were acquired into larger health systems are associated with greater reductions in mortality for conditions like heart failure, stroke and pneumonia compared to facilities that remained independent, according to a new study.

What it Means for Your Health System

(2-minute read, 13-minute podcast)

Some good news for those trying to make the case in favor of rural hospital M&A. For too long, insurance companies, policymakers and some parts of the media have been filling the “cons” column with negative consequences – real, alleged and everything in-between – of rural providers joining up with former competitors and larger systems alike. Now, this study, published in one of the reputable journals within the JAMA constellation, offers a solid datapoint for the “pro” column.

We’ve been encouraging providers pursuing partnerships to tell their story by explaining the value that partnership will create. We’ve also advocated for finding data that can undergird those arguments. And so for many reasons it was encouraging to see lives saved – mortality from heart attacks was cut nearly in half following an acquisition, mortality due to stroke decreased by about a third.

Whether your organization is looking to acquire, be acquired or simply help change the narrative around consolidation, add this study to your stack of materials. Here are some considerations as you do.

Be motivated. Nothing in the data guarantees an outcome, but rather shows what’s possible. That possibility can serve as a goal for everyone involved. “They cut mortality by half? It can be done – and let’s take it further!” It’s a way to connect back to your mission and give your people hope through the promise of making healthcare better.

Learn from the results. Use the overall data as the impetus to look at how other providers have succeeded. It’s the action to follow the motivation. That means spending time to reverse engineer the improved outcomes following an acquisition, then working to apply and explain those lessons for your specific situation. Who knows? Even hospitals who aren’t in the middle of a deal might find some valuable ideas.

Go on offense. A risk with positive data such is that it can become fetishized, something that advocates for a deal instinctively point to every time criticism comes their way. Don’t give in to the temptation. For one thing, you run the risk of muddying the waters by getting into a tit-for-tat argument. “They showed that costs went up? Well, we showed that mortality went down!” Technically accurate, maybe, but not helpful. In addition, if you use data defensively you are, by definition, reacting to the opposition. Instead, be positive and proactive by using the numbers to explain why you’re moving towards a deal and what you plan to accomplish.

Don’t expect a magic bullet. First, what does it tell us? That done well, a merger or acquisition can lead to meaningful improvements. What does it not tell us? That a partnership will lead to meaningful improvement. Be very careful to not overstate results. Getting to better outcomes will take a lot more than just partnering up and letting things run their course. It’s years of careful, mission-driven work to get the desired outcome.

Be patient. The Modern Healthcare article about the paper noted that many of the improvements “were not seen until after three to five years post-merger.” That’s a tough pill to swallow in an instant-gratification society, especially for something as acute and personal as medical care. As you proceed through a deal, it’s critical to set expectations about what is and isn’t possible, including when people can reasonably expect to see the results. But at the same time, explain to people the meaningful benchmarks along the way so they can track your progress towards the goal.

Rural hospitals are struggling and need a path forward. Recognizing those difficulties and mapping the way is the impetus for groups like Rural Healthcare Initiative. Here we have a bit of light, showing that there is a way to improve care for these communities through strong relationships. It takes time and energy to find that right partner, but here we have strong, reliable data that it can be done.

Want to learn more about the study and what it means for rural M&A? Check out the 13-minute conversation with Jarrard Inc. Partner Isaac Squyres.

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.

In High Stakes, Issue Navigation, Quick Think

Tired of Being Your Hero

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.

Healthcare workers are leaving.

They’re citing burnout, stress, safety, moral harm – and in some cases a desire for “personal freedom” over all else. They’re answering the question, “Is it worth it?” with a decisive, “No.”

Many are leaving because they cannot spend another day watching patient after patient die unnecessarily. Others have decided their career isn’t worth the vaccine. Logs on that particular fire? President Biden’s new mandate for large employers that will force even more people to make a choice. All told, the consequences for healthcare are severe – moral injury for healthcare workers, frightening staff shortages for providers and the public and long-term questions that will likely affect how all of us receive care.

Our latest Special Report homes in on the massively complex problem of clinician burnout. It’s a big read with some strong takeaways – definitely worth taking 15 minutes to digest.

Meanwhile, for a fascinating behind-the-curtain look at how doctors and nurses are expressing their burnout online, check out our Q&A below with Dean Browell. He’s a digital ethnographer and principal at Feedback, a social listening firm that digs into how what we say in the digital realm translates into how we behave in the physical world. And, he’s been tracking the issue of burnout among the healthcare workforce for years.

The Genie’s Out of the Bottle: What Clinicians Are Really Saying Online

(Five-minute read)

Jarrard Inc.: You’ve been tracking burnout in the healthcare workforce for years. Give us a bit of the back story.

Dean Browell: There’s been two different arcs with nurses and physicians, which have developed a little differently over the past 18 months.

Browell

Starting with nurses, about this time last year there was a larger burnout effect that in some ways was getting stoked by the heroes messaging that was finally starting to get a little stale. The pushback started with nurses, who are the most vocal group in healthcare, maybe even more than patients. They have their own message boards and have for years. They had some of the first Facebook groups because they all had .edu email addresses.

This time last year there was this perception that all of healthcare was being treated the same publicly, but in those groups, nurses were asking whether it really was the same to work in one organization or the other. For providers this meant that nurses considering a move represented an opportunity to attract and retain or a threat that the grass might be greener somewhere else.

Jarrard: What are the nurses expressing today?

DB: There’s more outright discussion that, “Maybe this entire industry isn’t for me.” What was first anger towards a larger or more nebulous idea – like administrators or how people are handling things on a macro level – is now towards the patient. Before, it was being angry at the virus and potentially how your hospital handled something. Today people are wondering if they can continue and serve a public that is, in their mind, willingly putting themselves at risk and creating this situation. It’s a very different burnout. And it’s a much harder equation from a retention and a recruitment standpoint for providers.

Jarrard: How are nurses talking about those concerns?

DB: In the beginning, nurses often had two distinct online personalities. There’s the online personality of “capital N” Nurse in front of everyone on Facebook versus on the American Nurses Association message board where they’re talking amongst themselves. Last year, those two faces began to collide. What we saw for the first time last fall was nurses on Facebook talking about union meetings. Typically, that would be relegated to the nurse message boards or discreet groups. We saw nurses not just take the platitudes about heroes and say, “Thank you. It’s been a lot. We have to push through this” like they did last summer. Instead, suddenly, you had them openly criticizing things they normally never would have discussed with their public-facing persona.

Jarrard: What’s the background on physicians?

DB: Usually what we saw is that physicians would pop up every now and then during a career change asking about the schools or nightlife in a particular city they were considering. “Hey, I’m thinking about moving to the city, what’s the orthopedic scene like?”

In August of last year, though, we saw physicians poking their heads up for the first time with the general public. They were offering their own statements and being a bit more forward with their own name at stake. That was different. And we saw this happening in some unusual places like threads of Reddit – that almost never happened before.

Jarrard: Same question – where are physicians today?

DB: They stepped out last August and they’ve stayed out in the public square since then. Now, like nurses, we’re seeing that they’re not just saying, “Hey, I have a stake in this, and I’m trying to help you navigate misinformation.” It’s not just a benign educational leadership approach like it would have been a year ago. Now it’s taken on an angrier or more exasperated tone that we haven’t heard out loud.

Jarrard: Nurses and doctors are coming from different professional and financial statuses. Does that affect how they’re able to respond?

DB: It manifests in the freedom to talk in a certain way. The physician discussion we’ve seen has still been very high level. “Here’s my take on what’s happening” as if they’re giving a comprehensive analysis of the moment. Contrast that with the nurse that says, “I just took my first break in eight hours.” Physicians take more of a punditry angle, whereas the nurses’ perspective is more in the moment.

Jarrard: Is this shift in tone and the level of engagement permanent or will it recede?

DB: For the most part I expect the physicians-as-pundits to eventually fade. Their level of connection online may stay, they may reappear when there’s something big they want to speak their mind about. But from a day-to-day perspective I’d expect that genie to go back into the bottle.

On the nurse side, I doubt the genie that will go back in the bottle – because of how open nurses are being today – is this idea of the two personas. There’s the happy-go-lucky, “I love that I’m in healthcare!” and “Here’s why I’m a nurse,” that is presented to family and friends, versus what they were saying in private among peers. You can’t unwind that clock now that they’ve been this exasperated publicly.

Jarrard: What does it all mean for the healthcare workforce going forward?

DB: This will have a freezing effect of some sort. It’ll be fascinating to watch enrollment in nursing programs. It was on a fast track for the last three years in order to meet the demands. We do a lot in higher education and there are some robust nursing programs having trouble meeting their enrollment numbers.

The question is turning into, “Who do you want to do this for?” And the feelings of betrayal and burnout change that conversation. I think it’ll have a freezing effect on the creation of a new nurse population.

Jarrard: We’re also seeing indications that people at the other end of their career are getting out. What does the situation you’ve described mean for them?

DB: It’s how many people leave the industry completely and how many leave the center of the industry. It’s people saying, “I’m going to find a nice, quiet CVS somewhere.” There’s this idea of decentralization of demand for healthcare services where it’s coming out of the hospitals and moving to those outer rings. It’s dangerous for hospitals because there was already attrition due to these alternative models. But now and over the next 18 months the threat is greater with people looking to leave completely or say, “How about I just not stand in the center of the storm?”

Jarrard: How can healthcare providers respond to this shift?

DB: Health systems have an opportunity to do better because of their sheer size. They can talk about what it’s like to work for the system in different roles. People will gripe about robbing Peter to pay Paul, but showcasing lateral movements that improve quality of life is one way that systems can cope.

Jarrard: What about smaller hospitals?

DB: Community hospitals will be the hardest hit because there’s almost no lateral movement available. For them, it will be about improving the situation. Maybe it’s investment in telehealth or to try and not be so ER-focused to remove some of that constant pressure. But it’s not an easy solution.

Jarrard: Last category: What’s the approach for those non-traditional or health services providers that aren’t in the center of the storm?

DB: We just finished a study for an orthopedic group that’s branching out towards a major metro area where they’ll be competing with some big systems. They’re going to have a fantastic story because they can recruit nurses who are desperate to get out of the ER by showing them what it’s like in an ortho urgent care by comparison. For these specialty practices it’s saying, “Hey, stay in nursing but come out of the storm.”

Jarrard: One of the consistent themes in our interviews is that it’s not about the money, but money is a major factor. Where does compensation come into all of this?

DB: Something that hasn’t come to healthcare is the concept of hazard pay. Of all industries you’d think it would be there for healthcare. That may start to happen, especially in systems that can only offer so much lateral movement. Maybe it comes into play between telehealth and in-person care in the ER or trauma.

Jarrard: Anything else? What are we missing?

DB: We may see an effect on M&A, too. If a system is looking at three different hospitals with similar profiles but one is an absolute powder keg in terms of its workforce, that would probably make it very easy to choose a different acquisition. It’s a different metric than most systems have looked at in the past. The focus has been on heads in beds. But looking at the distressed asset from the workforce standpoint will change the game a bit. The question will be, “What can our system sustain in terms of volatility, whether it’s attitude or behavior? Can we repair the culture or, even though it makes sense on paper, should we walk away because it will never fit?”

In High Stakes, Issue Navigation, Strategic Positioning

Special Report: Clinician Burnout and Managing the Unsolvable

“No go, unfortunately.”

That was the text from a contact saying her spouse wouldn’t be able to talk to us for this piece. As a critical care physician who’s spent the last year and a half treating COVID-19 patients and is now taking an extended sabbatical to recover, he was the perfect source for an article looking at the current state of the healthcare workforce – the accelerated burnout, the frustration, the fear and the sheer exhaustion. We had questions lined up: What do doctors and nurses need today? How much does monetary compensation play into the equation versus other types of support? Do the rumblings about an exodus from healthcare represent a real threat? Where do you hope to be after your time away?

But no, we would not be asking those questions. And maybe, that makes the story more powerful. Because the reason that this elite physician couldn’t talk to us wasn’t a matter of practicalities and scheduling. It was because he has given everything to save as many people from COVID-19 as possible and has nothing left. “He just shuts down when we talk about COVID,” the spouse said.

That absolute exhaustion encapsulates the problem our entire healthcare system is facing today. It clarifies both the human cost and the operational challenges facing provider organizations.

This report, based on interviews throughout the Jarrard Inc. network of clients and experts, triangulates the trends, draws conclusions about the future and offers thinking on how to manage an issue that’s gone past the boiling point.

That’s the public side, though. How much do the headlines reflect what’s happening behind closed doors? And, how much of an impact are we seeing from the visible PR battle combined with the results of closed-door negotiations? What’s the public perception of providers and payers? Does it even matter?

To determine whether payer-provider relationships are under more strain than usual, we spoke to experts in our network, checked in with our team and polled the public.

What we summarized: The cold war is heating up. There’s pressure on and from both sides, and a growing feeling of “Us” vs “Them.” Publicly, the balance of the PR is weighted towards payers, thanks to the campaigns mentioned above. But the insurance industry has a way to go to convince the public of its good intentions.

What We’re Hearing

Overall, payers and providers are getting more aggressive. Historically, negotiations tend to follow a set arc, with long, tense conversations bumping up against the expiration date only for a deal to be struck at the eleventh-and-a-half hour. While that remains largely true, the tone of more negotiations is getting hotter, the demands bigger. And in some cases, according to sources, the conversations nastier and more personal – with some individuals pointing fingers at the people across the table, not the organizations represented. That’s a problem.

As both providers and payers get bigger, it makes sense that the stakes would get higher. Each side is looking for leverage, and size is leverage. There are many reasons why hospitals pursue mergers and partnerships. Strength to push back against payers is certainly one of them.

An Elephant in the Room

Or, ahem, at the negotiating table.

Last year, as the CMS price transparency rule loomed, a big question was how the posted data would be used. Providers were concerned the data would  be of marginal value to consumers – but a gold mine to competitors and other industry stakeholders. Eight months on, that’s looking more likely.

Sources tell us those numbers are beginning to come into the national discussions around price. While the data are far from perfect – in some cases they’re not even that great – they could begin to affect payer-provider negotiations.

M&A skeptics (including the White House) like to note that “The top 10 health systems now control 24 percent market share,” according to Deloitte. Yes, and, the five biggest health insurance companies control 44 percent of the market. Half as many players controlling almost twice as much relative territory. So, joining forces with a larger system that can help balance the weight makes a lot of sense for a smaller provider.

Document with the White House signet with text that reads "FACT SHEET: Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy"

Still, it’s not all brass knuckles. “I’m seeing more candid discussions and true attempts to find middle ground,” said James Kennedy, a Tampa-based shareholder and chair of the healthcare practice at Carlton Fields. Greg Maddrey, director at Chartis and president of Chartis Consulting, said he’s seeing a mix of discussions:

“We see very collaborative discussions in some parts of the country and contentious discussions in other regions. It depends on the payer and market. One system just negotiated a significant value-based program, and they are exploring additional opportunities for JVs/collaborations. In other areas, the negotiations seem like traditional zero-sum game models.”

Things Usually Work Out, But…

We’ve also seen recent examples of things falling apart, eleventh hour or not. As the players get bigger, so do the numbers of patients who will suddenly find themselves walking into an out-of-network facility. Then comes the finger pointing as both sides try to pin the blame on the other. “They’re too expensive!” says the payer. “They’re raking in profits and want us to take less!” says the provider. “We’re trying to find a solution for our patients,” both exclaim. Meanwhile, patients are left scrambling, confused and footing the out-of-network bill.

Fortunately* for providers, the public is on their side. Or at least, more on their side than on the side of payers. We recently fielded a survey of American adults to get past the noisy headlines and figure out what the public actually thinks.

Do You Think Healthcare in the US Costs too Much?

Pie chart showing 85% "Yes" and 15% "No"

Who is Primarily Responsible for the Cost of Care?

Pie chart showing 12% "The System," 15% "Doctors," 13% "Hospitals," 30% "Insurance Companies," 16% "Government," and 10% "My Choices"

Most everyone (85 percent) agrees that healthcare is too expensive, and 30 percent of consumers believe the insurance industry is to blame. Only 13 percent blame hospitals for the high cost of care. Makes sense, then, that insurance would want to reposition itself in softer, friendlier light. It also follows that health insurance advocates would want to shift some of the blame to hospitals.

*About that asterisk: Hospitals should be pleased that they retain more of the public trust than other healthcare stakeholders. But they shouldn’t take that trust for granted. While the headline-grabbing ongoing campaign against hospitals doesn’t seem to have taken hold in the public’s mind yet, nothing says that it won’t.

What Happens Next

On paper it looks like providers are facing a multi-front battle, with skirmishes breaking out in places and tensions rising in others. How do you, as a provider, prepare for the impending charge? By going on the offensive.

Publicly

Explain your value. Repeatedly. Specificity is the antidote to speculation. Be aggressive in presenting data that shows how your organization contributes to the community it serves. Patient visits, lives saved, babies delivered, cancers caught early, people employed, economic impact. If your hospital reflects the local demographics, if you have a career development program to help improve diversity at the upper ranks, if you have a unique recruiting program to bring in more diverse physicians – talk about it. (If you don’t, start working in that direction). Talk about what you do with the revenue that comes in. Explain where that four percent margin you make is reinvested.

But don’t get mired in the data. Personalize it. Use stories to illustrate the numbers. Need a sign that stories are effective? Look no further than the “other side” of this debate. Hospital critics have been far more effective using stories to illustrate purported patient harm. They’re masters at personalizing the numbers they’re attacking. The public can see and hear patients and the pain they’re suffering. In contrast, providers, so far, tend to speak in numbers and vague platitudes. It’s no contest.

Explain how healthcare finance works. Did you cringe? Fair. Explaining the complexities of healthcare is brutal and daunting. But it’s on you to simplify the complex (or call in the experts to help you with that). Clear is kind, right? The more absurdly dense something is, the harder you need to work to explain it clearly, and dispel any sense of covering up, hiding facts and being opaque. Your patients and the public will appreciate you for that.

More Smart Strategies

Keep these tips in mind to navigate public disputes with payers

Advance preparation is key

Strike first to frame the issue

Clear, patient-centric messaging is most powerful

The messenger matters most: Clinical spokesperson is key

Establish a single source of truth online early on

Tactics & tone must match culture

Marcom obviously plays a lead role here. It’s time to develop educational materials to explain how insurance and billing works, and what patients’ options are. Not the inscrutable, low-quality papers that look like they came off a 90s copier, but attractive resources that explain in simple language what the terminology means, where people should look for information and how to interpret what they find. Video is helpful, or even social media posts to talk through the basics. Finally, work with your rev cycle team to ensure that anyone who might interact with patients on billing is trained to answer questions…in a friendly way.

One more thing here. While you’re translating the basics healthcare finance to your patients, think about going public. Seek out opportunities to talk in public forums. Use the media. Be a resource for reporters who are covering these issues. Don’t wait until they call you with tough questions. Position yourself proactively as the one offering information.

Privately

Get networking – now. Weak or nonexistent relationships sit at the center of problems around the negotiating table, according to experts who provided insight for this article. As noted above, some negotiations include personal attacks – an odd, dispiriting development. Without relationships, there’s no built-in trust, no ability to read the other side’s actions or words – typical buffers that prevent conversations from turning nasty. In the legal world we hear of plaintiff and defense attorneys having lunch together, meeting for drinks after court. On the surface, it feels strange to be dining with the enemy. But the outcome is often far more amicable and productive in legal proceedings. Healthcare could use the same approach. It’s time to network and meet with counterparts regularly so that the personal relationships can help soften the rough edges of negotiation.

The need for better relationships extends to employers and brokers, as well. As providers struggle to match up with payers, the employers who are effectively paying for care and whose employees make up the patient base can be strong allies. In our experience, this doesn’t happen nearly enough. Same thing for insurance brokers, who are often so key to connecting the various pieces of the how-do-we-pay-for-care puzzle.

In all of these networking conversations, providers must always take the high road. Everything should be about improving the health, access, experience and comfort for those receiving care. It’s all too easy for patients to get lost in the skirmish, but providers must intentionally make them the focal point.

Profanely

This is a no brainer. Just @%!# do it.

Providers save lives. They drive innovation. They employ millions. The provider side of the industry is not without its faults, and we should not hesitate to call out problems and bad actors. Ultimately, though, it is the providers who deliver care. Make that point in public and in private. Step up efforts to ensure every aspect of your organization is aligned with its mission. Make the case with data and stories, and don’t behave in ways that could give critics fresh ammunition.

As insurance companies increase the pressure, consolidate and integrate with providers of their own, delivering on their mission and showcasing how they’re doing it is the best way for hospitals and health systems to maintain trust take the financial steps necessary to keep the doors open.

In High Stakes, Issue Navigation, Quick Think

Now’s a Good Time to Not Say Dumb Stuff

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 Science of Masking Kids at School Remains Uncertain

Inconclusive doesn’t mean invaluable. True, inconclusive results from scientific studies often get put on the back shelf and don’t make their way into published results. But last week when the CDC skipped over results from studies casting doubt on how much masks really do benefit young kids – it was a flat-out communications snafu.

What it Means for Your Health System

(3-minute read, 22-minute podcast)

Brilliant, experienced people across the country keep forgetting this basic lesson: Pause. Consider the consequences. Speak.

Examples? There are plenty:

  • The CDC is “file drawering” data that shows the science of masking kids in schools might not be as settled as they’ve maintained.
  • Hospital advocacy groups are responding to specific, reasonable questions about price transparency with, “It’s really hard.”
  • The FDA gave accelerated approval to a “blockbuster” Alzheimer’s drug against its own committee’s recommendation and then responded by doubling down.
  • Last year, public health leaders told everyone to hunker down at home in all circumstances – with a sudden carveout for social justice protests.
  • Local officials reopened bars and restaurants before many other businesses with convoluted explanations why drinking on a Saturday night was totally fine as long as it concluded by 10 PM. Cheers? Maybe not.

Each of these decisions was made with good intent. Some on compressed timelines with uncertainty swirling. Others were crafted in the heat of the moment – but here’s the problem: Often, those moments were either avoidable or could have been at least somewhat predicted.

On top of that, these conversations are happening at a time where people are inured to bad news. We’re sapped emotionally to the point we aren’t responding normally to tragedy  – in fact, we’re not responding to tragedy. We’re out of empathy. That means getting a critical message across may be harder than ever because people either won’t respond or will respond with skepticism.

This bleak picture coupled with missteps by the groups mentioned above are a warning to communicators about the risk of being unclear. Here are five pointers that hold true whether dealing with the heat of a crisis or a thoughtful explanation of a long-running issue like pricing:

  • Get accustomed to overexplaining things. Don’t assume your audience knows everything. The CDC and FDA, should know by now that very few people deeply understand science; therefore, simplicity and repetition are key. Same goes for the rest of us. Hand waving and saying, “It’s complicated but trust us” doesn’t cut it. Use simple language and repeat the message with empathy toward your listeners.
  • Know your audience. Understand who you’re trying to reach, their concerns, barriers to communicating with them and whom they trust. Prepare to communicate with them on issues that matter to them through their preferred channels.
  • Slow down (a little). You know to “tell your story or someone else will.” That doesn’t mean “say anything just to fill the space.” You may feel like you don’t have time, but trust us, you’ll spend more time cleaning up the mess if you’re sloppy the first go around. Pause to give everyone at the table a moment to consider and make sure you’re addressing the real issue.
  • Consider the consequences. Having understood your audience and slowed down to consider what you’re doing, think through how the message you’ve crafted is likely to be perceived. Anticipate questions. What holes will people on the receiving end try to poke in your message? Responding to questions by saying something is “really hard,” or that “hospitals are trying but maybe we should scrap the whole system,” looks like you’re spinning. You’re certainly not addressing the concerns of actual patients whose lives and wallets are at stake. To be clear: Don’t shy away from offering the kind truth and standing up for what you think is right. Acknowledge concerns; don’t brush them off.
  • Don’t be just truthful. A favorite phrase around Jarrard is “responsible transparency.” It’s the idea that we should offer more information than we’d like to because it builds trust and gives our audiences a more complete picture. Even when the information might not be what we want it to be. When the CDC fell down with the masking story, they weren’t fudging the numbers or hiding data that showed masking has negative effects. It appears they were just trying not to muddy the water. But this is a national debate about the safety of our kids and, despite the insane heat of that debate, it’s crucial to show your work, warts and all.
  • Know that some people will misconstrue, misrepresent and mislead. There are trolls and click-bait artists who will come after you no matter what. You can’t reach them. Don’t let them stop you from doing the right thing.
  • Speak with kindness and empathy. We know, a lot of us are running out of empathy. Here’s good advice from a commentary in The Wall Street Journal: “Healthcare professionals have a challenging obligation to work to understand where people are coming from, build a relationship, address their fears to help them understand, gently correct information that is wrong, admit when medicine was wrong and medical authorities misled people, motivate them based on their needs, and develop networks of support in the community.” Amen to that.
In High Stakes, Issue Navigation, Quick Think, Strategic Positioning

Payers Singing from the Same Hymnal: A Q&A with Wendell Potter

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.

Editor’s Note

Call it perfect timing. Last week, when the nation’s largest provider in California and Anthem Blue Cross finally inked a deal after months of escalating friction, we’d just dotted the final I and crossed the final T on our Special Report on payer-provider tension. Check it out and then chase it down with our Q&A with noted author, speaker, Congressional witness and consultant Wendell Potter. He spent years leading comms and PR at Humana and Cigna before leaving to advocate for healthcare reform and shine a light on how payers operate.

Jarrard Inc.: We talk a lot about the increased scrutiny on providers, and not just from insurance companies – also from media, advocacy groups, Congress and the White House. What are you seeing?

Wendell Potter: There’s a decline in favorability because of news coverage over the past several weeks, months and even years. Part of it is the result of an ongoing campaign by payers to point the finger of blame away from them. Insurance companies are quite adept at shaping the conversation. They’ve spent a lot of time trying to make the public think that they are largely blameless for any ills in our system.

Jarrard: What is it about providers that makes them a target?

WP: One thing is that they have brick-and-mortar facilities. They’re seen, they’re ever-present and we need them. Insurance companies are not that way. People can assume they have good coverage and pay little attention to the name on their insurance card. So it’s less visibility, less awareness, even on lawmakers’ minds. A decade ago, during the debate on the ACA, insurers were under more scrutiny than they had been in a while or have been since. But a lot of the attention has been shifted in subsequent years to rising healthcare costs. The insurance industry has been quite successful in getting everybody to focus on rising cost of hospital care and pharmaceuticals. It’s playing out in what Congress is paying attention to right now.

Jarrard: Why are health insurance companies so good at creating this public narrative?

WP: They’re able to get everyone to sing out of the same hymnal. It’s interesting because AHIP has a pretty diverse membership – non-profits and for-profits of different sizes. But they’ve been good at forcing message discipline and being perceived as the ones wearing the white hats.

For them it’s an absolutely necessary strategy where it might not have been for others in healthcare. I don’t think others have understood the vital importance of doing what the insurance industry does day in and day out. Essentially, insurance companies are not necessary. We’ve got evidence around the world that health systems can get along quite well without them, so they have to have an ongoing campaign to make people believe they offer a very good value proposition. And they’ve been hugely successful in doing that.

Jarrard: We recently asked the public who they blame for the high cost of healthcare. Insurers came in at 30 percent with providers at around 15 percent. People trust their doctors and are more likely to blame insurers than hospitals, but in our view, providers need to cultivate that trust, not rest on it.

WP: I think that’s absolutely right. If you were to do a comparison of what you’re finding now, versus what it was a decade or two ago, you’d see some changes in attitude. The losers have probably been on the delivery side. Insurance companies have always brought up the rear in terms of public opinion. We want insurance to pay our bills and get out of the way. There is a lot of work that needs to be done on the part of provider organizations to rebuild trust with the American public.

Jarrard: How do providers do that? What can they do to tell better stories?

WP: It goes back to value proposition. There needs to be renewed focus on crafting messages that resonate with the public about what the value proposition really is. It’s always useful to have individual stories and throw in data. But if you just lead with data, people’s eyes glaze over. So it has to be packaged in the right way.

Jarrard: What are two or three types of data that providers need to really build that message?

WP: Something along the lines of population health. Talk about what your system is doing to improve the quality of life in the communities that they serve. You can get into wonky topics like social determinants of health without using that term. It can be important for community leaders at every level to understand what you’re doing, how the work that you’re doing improves quality at the individual level and for people who live in the area that you serve.

Another thing is highlighting good work. When an insurance company is giving money to a group in whatever city, they’ll have a press release. They’re always out showcasing their charitable contributions and what they’re doing. You can’t overstate the importance of things like that.

In High Stakes, Strategic Positioning, Surveys

Special Report: Payers and Providers Square Off

“They” can be a powerful weapon.

It can conjure the other side, the opponent, the adversary against whom “we” are fighting. That word is being bandied about between providers and payers in the escalating feud over the high cost of healthcare. And it suggests that behind closed doors, negotiations between those two parties are getting nastier as the cost of healthcare comes back into focus.

Case in point: “That doesn’t mean they’re not going to try to use this,” said USC healthcare professor Glenn Melnick earlier this year while suggesting hospitals are abusing COVID-19 relief funds. His apparent purpose was to assign blame and set providers as the adversary.

Scanning headlines, it’s obvious that the intense public spotlight pointed at hospitals pre-pandemic has returned (remember surprise billing and hospitals suing patients?). Talk of healthcare heroes is ebbing way, with chatter flowing about the evils of consolidation and health systems driving the cost of care while focusing on profits over patients. Hospitals are being framed as “Them.” Unfortunately, the newsworthy stories about poor billing practices, limited access or other non-consumer-friendly behaviors are self-inflicted wounds by specific hospitals that create opportunities for other actors to paint with a broad brush, undermine providers’ positions and cast doubt about their motivations.

Meanwhile, the insurance industry is working to remake its image from a poorly understood and disliked group to the torch-bearers for patient-centric care. “We.” “Us.” It’s even rebranded its trade association to “AHIP” and is using broader messaging to get away from the focus on insurance. All of this appears to be part of an orchestrated campaign, that’s quite frankly, a savvy PR move.

In High Stakes, Issue Navigation, Quick Think, Surveys

Delta Survey Says: People Are Angry, Patients Are Nervous

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

New Jarrard Inc. Poll: Six Insights into What Healthcare Consumers Are Thinking

(4-minute read)

As the Delta variant raged hot this week and hospitals began to curtail services, we asked 1,200 US adults about their thoughts and feelings about the pandemic*. Here’s what stood out:

  • Nearly three in 10 people say the current COVID-19 situation has them less likely to seek in-person care.
  • Telehealth is sounding better to many, with more than four in 10 saying today’s environment makes them more likely to go that route.
  • About half of those who aren’t vaccinated are dug in to their position. In fact, they’re so dug in that many of them say they’d leave their jobs rather than comply with an employer mandate.
  • Sixty percent of the people who are vaccinated harbor some ill will towards those who aren’t.

Several questions continue threads we’ve been pulling in our various consumer surveys over the past 16 months. In each, we want to understand people’s feelings of safety in different settings. (See findings from last April, August and this January.)

Here’s the latest healthcare consumer intelligence:

In-person care has some people nervous. We asked consumers if the current COVID-19 situation has changed the way they’ll seek non-emergency care – in person and via telehealth. Twenty-eight percent said they’re less likely to pursue in-person care. A smaller proportion is actually more likely to seek in-person care. (Yeah, we don’t get that either. Maybe they think wait times will be shorter?) But, the largest shift is in the wrong direction – a tough situation for providers who had a taste of returning volumes this year and now may be facing the need to scale back services due to the latest surge.

Does the current COVID-19 situation affect the likelihood you’ll seek non-emergency medical care in person?

Bar chart representing individuals' levels of comfort in-person

On the other hand, it looks like providers can expect an uptick in patients seeking remote appointments, as 44 percent said the current situation makes them more likely to pursue the virtual route. It’s a great reminder that telehealth needs to stay front and center. Marcom teams should play a strategic and tactical role here, helping shape public perceptions of safety, comfort, convenience and different options for care. It pays to keep patients abreast of any changes along the entire care process – from scheduling to arrival to checkout and billing.

People feel a bit safer in public places now vs. January and continue to feel safer in medical settings over other locations. We’ve been asking this question for the past year. Overall, people’s feelings of safety are up roughly one point from eight months ago, based on our 10-point scale with higher meaning safer. It’s something, but not a lot to bank on.

On a scale of one to 10, how safe do you feel going into…

Horizontal stacked bar graph representing individuals' feelings of safety

Vaccines and masks help allay fear. Many providers are already taking valuable safety approaches that their patients appreciate. But we wanted to dig deeper into respondents who are iffy about their feelings of safety in medical settings.

Asked what factors might help them feel better about in-person care (for non-emergencies), one of the top signals that cohort is looking for is a vaccine mandate.

We’re well-aware that many hospitals are struggling with the decision to implement mandates for employees. It’s a tough call. Still, in the public’s eye, mandates are vital to ensuring their comfort in your facility. Almost eight in 10 respondents in our January poll said that vaccinations should be required for healthcare workers – and this remains a consistent theme. So if you’ve got one in place, make sure you let the people know.

Other top factors in increasing feelings of safety were:

  • Isolation of infectious diseases in separate facilities
  • Masking requirements for everyone in the facility

Vaccine resistance is hard-baked for a small but notable percentage of respondents. Almost 70 percent of respondents said they were either fully or partially vaccinated, perfectly in line with CDC data out this week. We asked the remaining percentage about things that might help move them towards vaccination. For about four in 10 – or 13 percent of all respondents – the answer is, pretty much nothing. In fact, we asked if an employer mandate would increase their likelihood and phrased the options as “Yes – I’d do it to keep my job,” “No – I’d leave my job,” and “unsure.” Forty-six percent of the unvaccinated said they’d leave their job rather than comply with a mandate.

For providers, that unfortunate finding is a reminder to spend time and resources where you can make change happen, because there are corners of the community where you can’t.

Would you be more willing to receive a COVID-19 vaccine if…

Stacked bar graph representing what changed individuals' minds on getting the vaccine

Those who are vaccinated aren’t thrilled with those who didn’t get the jab. No surprise, our country is divided. Sixty percent of the vaccinated said they’ve become angrier at those who aren’t since news hit of the Delta variant surge. That anger extends to the medical community, including the doctors and nurses caring for those patients who made the choice – sometimes loudly – to avoid vaccination. Each day, these professionals see the accusations and misinformation. Then they come to work to deal with the avoidable consequences of it all.

Marcom leaders need to continue keeping open lines of communication with staff, keep support resources in place and simply be aware that it’s happening.

Have reports of the Delta variant changed your opinion of those who choose not to get vaccinated?

Bar graph with navy bar representing 51% "I'm more upset," orange bar representing 10% "Wasn't upset but am now," green bar representing 17% "I'm less upset," and light blue bar representing 23% "I'm not upset"

People think the worst is behind us…barely. On a brighter note, a slight plurality – 39 percent – said that they think we’re on the right side of this pandemic. Wishful thinking? TBD. Let’s hope they’re right.

Do you believe the worst of COVID-19 is behind or ahead of us?

Donut chart with green color representing 30% "unsure," orange color representing 39% "behind us," and navy color representing 31% "ahead of us"

*Online poll of US adults ages 25 and up, fielded Wednesday, August 4

Gender: 53% M / 47% F

Ethnicity: 67% white / 13% Black / 12% Latino/Hispanic / 4% Asian

This piece was originally published over the weekend in our Sunday newsletter. Fill out the form for full survey results.