Envisioning 2.0

Today I am pleased to announce that my firm Envision Solutions, and Trusted.MD Network have launched the second edition of the “Taking the Pulse of the Healthcare Blogosphere” survey. This annual poll gathers comprehensive opinion and demographic data from the global community of healthcare bloggers.

Last year’s survey was a great success, as it has become an important resource for researchers, journalists, marketers, physicians and others seeking to learn more about why people blog about healthcare around the world.

If you devote at least 30% of posts on your blog to health-related subjects, you qualify to take this poll. To learn more about it, please click here. Thank you in advance for your help.

This week a number of interesting stories have run in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal focusing on access to health insurance. I won’t comment on these articles, but I’ve summarized two I think provide food for thought.

-Battle Over Children’s Health Insurance Rages: This week, the Bush Administration issued a letter to states outlining a policy that would sharply reduce efforts to expand access to the federally funded children’s state health insurance program. According to the Times:

“The Bush administration, continuing its fight to stop states from expanding the popular Children’s Health Insurance Program, has adopted new standards that would make it much more difficult for New York, California and others to extend coverage to children in middle-income families.

Administration officials outlined the new standards in a letter sent to state health officials on Friday evening, in the middle of a monthlong Congressional recess. In interviews, they said the changes were intended to return the Children’s Health Insurance Program to its original focus on low-income children and to make sure the program did not become a substitute for private health coverage.”

-Managed Care Companies Create New Insurance Packages, But Some Think They Are Too Skimpy: Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal outlined efforts by managed care companies like Humana to encourage young people to sign up for health insurance. The policies, which carry low premiums but high deductibles are being praised by some. However, others charge that they are too skimpy, as some do not cover childbirth. According to the Journal:

“Health insurers are targeting the two groups of people least likely to be covered by insurance at work — young people in their 20s and 30s, and early retirees who don’t yet qualify for Medicare.

Companies including Aetna Inc. and WellPoint Inc. have recently begun offering individual health-insurance packages tailored for young adults, the fastest-growing population of uninsured Americans. Besides basic medical coverage, the packages also often include such benefits as teeth whitening and gym-membership discounts, because insurers say many young people are especially concerned about looking good. But to keep the policies affordable — Humana Inc. packages start at $26 a month, for example — the plans usually have high deductibles of as much as thousands of dollars a year and strip out some coverage that could be important, such as maternity care and brand-name prescription drugs.”

With the presidential election (prematurely) heating up, a lot has been said — on both sides of the aisle — about healthcare reform.  From rousing stump speeches designed to direct public ire against the usual suspects to skimpy reform proposals, Americans are getting a lot of information about this issue — and that’s a good thing.

However, sometimes when I look at the healthcare reform debate I feel like I’m experiencing déjà vu.  Back in the 1990s we heard a lot of sound and fury about the need for comprehensive reform and, well, not much happened.  In the end, we were left with the same problems we’ve faced for decades:

-Too few people have access to decent healthcare

-We spend more than we should

-Our system does not serve patients very well

As has often been the case, the states jumped in where the federal government dared not tread.  Local and state-wide officials came up with innovative solutions to the healthcare crisis that worked within the boundaries of what was possible.  We’re seeing the same thing happen today. 

According to the Wall Street Journal, “more than 20 states have enacted or are considering proposals to the uninsured.  But they’re embracing far-ranging — and in some cases opposing — philosophies and methodologies on how best to provide coverage, setting the scene for a heated debate over which direction a federal program would take.”

That’s right, those reading the tea leaves of healthcare reform should be looking at what’s happening in the states.  Because if a program (or programs) is successful it stands a greater chance of being adopted on the federal level.

Individuals and governments on the local level are proposing and developing real solutions to real problems people are having right now.  We need ideas we can implemnt today, not 10 years in the future because the need is great.  I think this is an agenda anyone can get behind.

Yes, a picture is worth 1,000 words.  To see what’s happening on the state level take a look at this image (shown below; click to enlarge) from the Wall Street Journal focusing on state health reform proposals.  I’ll be talking a lot more about this issue (in a powerful and substantive way) in the coming weeks due to an exciting project I’ve been tapped to help a new client produce.  Stay tuned to this blog for more about this effort.

Image: Percentage Of Uninsured In America (2005); Call-out boxes show states with reform proposals in the works or being implemented
Source: The Wall Street Journal

There’s been a rumor going around the blogosphere that BrandWeek is distancing itself from its new resident blogger, the controversial Dr. Peter Rost. John Mack, author of the Pharma Marketing Blog, said it first here:

“It seems that Nielsen Business Media, owner of Brandweek — the trusted print publication formerly associated with NRx — is busy putting some distance between Brandweek and the NRx blog. First, the name change, which is evident in the new logo although the URL still has ‘brandweek’ in it. Second, if you go to the Nielsen page that lists its publications, you won’t find BrandweekNRx blog mentioned in the ‘Brandweek’ section. Consequently, if you are a new reader of NRx, you are not going to know the association, if any, between the blog and Brandweek! There’s no ‘About’ section or anything else that will tell you who’s responsible for the blog unless you scroll to the bottom of the page and click on the copyright notice. And who besides me is going to do that?”

The rumor continued to spread in the latest edition of the MedAdNews e-newsletter, Pharma Blogs: Week in Review:

“Last week, Dr. Peter Rost at NRx (formerly known as BrandWeek NRx) and Ed Silverman at Pharmalot reported the departure of three managers from the HIV marketing team at Pfizer.”

Is it true that BrandWeek is distancing itself from Dr. Rost? Last week I conducted an interview with Jim Edwards, BrandWeekNRx’s former author, for a new WebTv show I am producing in partnership with Scribe Media, The Digital Health Revolution. He told me there is no evidence that BrandWeek is putting a firewall between itself and Rost. Specifically Edwards said:

o The BrandWeekNRx logo has not changed. It’s the same as has always been since the blog was launched

o All of BrandWeek’s blogs are listed on the front page of the magazine’s Website. If you scroll down, you’ll see that the company refers to Rost’s blog as BrandWeekNRx and still prominently displays its posts (see screen shot below; click it to enlarge)

o BrandWeekNRx’s traffic has shot up since Rost took the helm, which is something the publication is very happy about.

In addition to discussing Rost’s addition to the BrandWeek blogger roster, Edwards and I had a very interesting and wide ranging conversation. Stay tuned to this blog for more info about The Digital Health Revolution, which will launch later this summer.

at Workers’ Comp Insider.

A little late to the party, the New York Times published a major article today focusing on how the rise in generic medications is starting to “pinch the profits” of major drug firms. According to the Times:

“A quiet coup is taking place in American medicine cabinets. Prescription bottles bearing catchy brand names like Zoloft and Flonase are being pushed aside by tongue-twisting generics like sertraline and fluticasone propionate. While the trend is already pinching the profits of big pharmaceutical companies, it is rare good medical news for American pocketbooks.”

Investors and other drug industry observers have long known that drug firms’ profits are being threatened by a wave of generic drugs. In addition, many have lamented the fact that few companies are prepared to weather the storm as their product pipelines have dried up.

What I’m interested in is whether the dip in drug prices will cause the public to turn their attention to other major drivers of health spending. According to an article published in Health Affairs in late 2006, prescription drugs accounted for 7.2% of spending on healthcare that year. In contrast, money spent on physicians, outpatient care and other services outstripped dollars devoted to drugs.

Only time will tell if the reduction in medication price pressures will ease negative commentary about drug firms’ pricing strategies. However, I’m not holding my breath on that score.

Image Source: Blue Cross, Blue Shield

Dr. Peter Rost, who has made a name for himself publishing controversial and widely-read information about the pharmaceutical industry, has joined BrandWeek’s blog, BrandWeekNRx.

Rost replaces Jim Edwards, a longtime BrandWeek staffer who was selected for the prestigious Knight-Bagehot fellowship program, conducted by the Columbia School of Journalism.

Edwards is known for his witty and hard-hitting examination of pharma industry marketing practices. It is likely that Rost, who has extensive marketing experience at Pfizer and other drug firms, will be expected to provide insights into corporate and product promotional strategies. This will be especially valuable as the industry struggles to understand and interact with its Internet empowered stakeholders.

Right now, Rost and BrandWeek are taking things on a “day by day” basis. As Rost will discover, being responsible to an editor and publication with a well-regarded reputation and editorial standards will require him to temper his strident tone and carefully select the topics he covers. What also remains to be seen is whether industry executives will participate in interviews with Rost, as he is not well-liked at many drug firms.

All in all this is an interesting move for Rost.  Will the Rost-BrandWeek partnership pan out?  Who knows, but it should be an interesting ride.