Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /hsphere/local/home/doublebi/drmichaelbreen.com/blog/wp-blog-header.php:1) in /hsphere/local/home/doublebi/drmichaelbreen.com/blog/wp-includes/feed-rss2.php on line 2
Every morning we take in the day’s news agenda, imagine the media’s needs that day, and find a way to make our clients’ stories fit those needs. (A new heart stent may be hard to sell….but not on the day Dick Cheney returns to the hospital with chest pain.)
Any occassional insights are brief and have a shelf-life measured in hours.
For those reasons, I’ve been writing more on Twitter, often several times a day.
If you need to know every morning, what the medical media’s thinking…and what it’s seeking, please visit my daily posts at
https://twitter.com/tvdoc
Thanks.
]]>I recently placed a newspaper story that said our client, a large multi-specialty group, represented the next generation of primary care. Electronic medical records, data outcomes, and other tools had effectively made them like “Marcus Welby on steroids.”
The content was certainly positive, but I wasn’t prepared for my client’s euphoria.
]]>But medical reporters and producers don’t care.
For the moment (as one put it) it’s “all swine flu all the time.”
Fortunately, that challenge is also an opportunity. Medical reporters are desperate for new angles on a continuing story. We’ve found some angles and gotten some coverage.
Here are different approaches that worked for us..and provided publicity for clients sometimes far afield of Swine Flu:
]]>Physicians are very complicated.
Take our attitude toward risk. On one hand we’re risk-takers. We were trained to routinely make life and death decisions. The practicing doctor thinks clearly in the most stressful situations. We tell ourselves of course we’re risk-takers. (Never, ever tell an orthopedic surgeon that he’s afraid of risk.)
Yet physicians are also self-selected to be risk-averse. As a rule we chose a conventional career path for the guarantee of a lucrative lifetime income. And we excelled in an educational and medical culture that rewarded unquestioning obedience and conformity.
Yesterday I dealt with three doctors who personified all these attitudes toward risk.
]]>The media and the government will try to scare your patients to death.
I know this because (like the raging LA wildfires) the government will provide the heat, and the media will provide the spark to ignite a seeming disaster (real or not)
I know this for two reasons:
First because TV news and newspapers are going through their last spastic death throes. At this point they’ll do anything to get your attention. And nothing works like stoking up a panic. Of course, the media will claim to be “responsible” about it’s coverage. But “responsible” is a very relative term. For instance, last week the WHO’s estimate of 90K deaths was page one in most papers. Later that week, the CDC’s less alarmist outlook was on page 32.
No. The MSM is desperate and with jobs at stake, ethics have become expendable.
But the media’s not the only party interested in stoking the flames. The Swine Flu “pandemic” is a godsend for the Obama administration. In the midst of the health care reform fiasco, Swine Flu creates universal fear and lets the government come to the rescue. The government gets to show it really can deliver healthcare and that voters really can’t get by without a government solution.
Most important, the greater the fear, the greater the calamity the government can claim to have prevented.
So over the next few weeks look for a one-two punch. First the government will issue dire warnings…then media will scream them to the sky. And ultimately, when the outbreak is minimal, the government will credit its own aggressive intervention. It’s just good politics.
Who knows? Those future warnings might turn out to be accurate. But I suspect the Swine Flu story isn’t about a disease…but about a timely cure for the powers-that-be.
]]>Yesterday I met with the honchos of a suburban hospital. They want to compete with the “big boys” ie the city’s academic medical centers. That means generating some citywide coverage.
I told the staff that I could do that, but only with their help. They had to question their staff to help find the great stories that are all around them.
At which point the hospital’s CEO said, “Frankly I’ve given up on the media. We just got a national award for our diabetic care. Not a single station or newspaper showed any interest.”
Of course not. That story is dead on arrival.
To understand what the media wants, you first have to understand how it works.
]]>This morning I mentioned to a physician client that my son just entered USC’s “Business of Cinema” program.
He said, “You have to be young to be in movies these days. Video is changing so fast it’s overwhelming.”
“No joke,” I said. “When I was in TV news my goal was to make pictures look like reality. I’d walk out of one frame and into the next…obey the rules of continuity. Now TV news stories are a kaleidoscope…just random jump cuts. Some stories even have music and special effects. There’s not even the pretense of faking reality.”
“What happened?”
]]>I have a very clever client.
He’s just published the first heart disease prevention book ever for preschoolers. I wrote a press release, made some calls, and got him some local exposure. But, frankly, not as much coverage as I hoped.
His solution? He demanded I press the national media.
And there, we got lots of response….from USA Today, CBS Morning News, Fox News Network, and other national outlets. It’s counterintuitive but a poor local story can make a great national story (and vice-versa).
You can get national media attention…with the right story. Here’s what the networks, national magazines, and newspapers of record are looking for:
A high price buys the best….unless you’re looking for medical care. In that case cost and quality are on separate planets.
We hear that message a lot from the supporters of health care reform. They praise the Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, and other models of efficiency.
But if those models become the norm, we’ll be seeing a different breed of physician…for better and worse.
I’ve seen that breed for myself. I first visited the Mayo Clinic twenty years ago when, as a medical reporter in the Twin Cities, I travelled to nearby Rochester. Everyone knew it was the best hospital in America: I wanted viewers to know it was also among the cheapest. (Some difference I made! This is still news to almost everyone.)
By the way, do you know just why the Mayo Clinic is one of the country’s least expensive hospitals? The answer has nothing to do with good medicine.
]]>“The Rich Are Different From You And Me.”
F. Scott Fitgerald
That’s true when it comes to health care. And not always for the better.
Just look at Michael Jackson . Jackson was rich…and because of it he received inappropriate care that ultimately killed him.
We’re now learning the pop star received daily doses of Demerol from his personal live-in doctor. Family members say yesterday that doctor “injected too much” and Jackson collapsed. (The LAPD is now on a manhunt for that doctor as I write.)
Everything about the pop star’s treatment was wrong and unethical. The mutilating plastic surgeries, the refusal to confront his apparent pedophilia, the overprescribing for “stress” and other ailments.
It’s fair to say that Jackson’s “medical” care helped kill him. All because fawning, parasitic physicians were willing to give the unbalanced star any treatment he desired.
I once knew a famous transplant surgeon who treated former Senator Hubert Humphrey and other national celebrities. He always claimed “Celebrities get the worst medical care of all.” His argument was that fearful doctors treated celebrities “by committee.” The problem was (like Aesop’s fox with too many plans of escape) the docs wasted precious time nervously debating the best course of treatment while the patient just continued to deteriorate.
I know. This is the exception. Rich people live longer and a main reason they do is because they have access to better health care. The rich are “different” there as well.
Just look at Steve Jobs. He effectively bought his liver transplant. The national transplant registry encourages patients to get on transplant lists in as many regions of the country as possible. But that’s just not practical for most of us: insurers will only pay for the extensive pre-transplant work-up at a single hospital. So in reality most hopeful recipients are on a single waiting list in the region where they live.
Not Steve Jobs. He spent the money for work-ups at hospitals nationwide and ultimately got a transplant at Methodist University Hospital in Memphis. This loophole for the rich is typical, perfectly legal…and totally unethical.
Which reminds me of Ernest Hemingway’s rejoinder to Fitzgerald’s observation about the rich. “Yes,” said Hemingway, “They have more money.” And as Mark Twain said, “When it comes to money, more is better.”
Unless you’re Michael Jackson. Then you get the worst health care of all.