Posts Tagged ‘healthcare’

I’m sure I’m not the only one waiting with anticipation to see what will come out of the current FDA Hearing on Social Media. The very fact that this meeting is taking place puts the FDA under pressure to issue some coherent guidance on how pharma companies can and should be engaging in dialogue with patients and physicians online and how to address the issues around adverse event reporting. We’re fortunate enough to have a colleague at the hearing and below is her update from yesterday’s session. The updates are also being posted www.HealthieRForum.com

HealthieRForum Exclusive: From the Floor of the FDA Social Media Hearing

Nicole Preiss-Riley, Senior Vice President in Ruder Finn’s Healthcare practice, is onsite at the FDA hearing on social media.  Based on the sessions from the first half of the day, here’s what she has to report:

Presenters were asked to focus their remarks on five key questions:

1.     For what online communications are manufacturers, packers or distributors accountable?

2.     How can manufacturers, packers or distributors fulfill regulatory requirements in their Internet and social media promotion, particularly when using tools that are associated with space limitations and tools that allow for real-time communications?

3.     What parameters should apply to the posting of corrective information on Web sites controlled by third parties?

4.     When is the use of links appropriate?

5.     How should adverse event reporting be addressed online?

Thus far, presenters have selectively responded to questions rather than answering each one of the five as part of their respective comments – much of the discussion has focused on the unique character of social media and the value it provides to both providers and consumers.

It’s clear that the pharmaceutical and medical device companies are eager to work with the FDA to determine parameters for working within the social media sphere as well as a plan for implementing those guidelines.  However, the question has been raised repeatedly as to what product-related information companies should be responsible for conveying.

Much of the commentary has focused on moderated sites (i.e., WebMD) that have discrete editorial roles. What has not yet been addressed with any robust discussion is the broader social media landscape of bloggers and opinion-based Web sites.

How this type of content can or should be regulated has not been touched yet. One independent blogger who is scheduled to present at the hearing tomorrow said, “It’s been a good meeting so far.  Based on what’s been said, I hope the FDA will come up with guidance within the next year.”

It seems we are in the midst of a noticeable shift in focus from pharma companies towards the emerging markets. As a number of major brands in key therapeutic areas come off-patent, western drug makers are considering growth opportunities that lie outside of North America and Europe, in countries such as India, China, Russia and Brazil.

According to IMS, annual pharmaceutical sales in emerging markets is expected to reach $400bn by 2020, equivalent to current sales in the US and the five top European markets combined. It is also predicted that during the next five years, the market in China has the potential to double in size, becoming the seventh largest pharmaceutical market by 2010.

This makes me wonder what the future will hold for global healthcare PR? Is there a possibility that more and more of our target markets will be based in these “new economies”?

The Financial Times reported last week that Pfizer signed two licensing deals with India-based Aurobindo and Claris, strengthening the company’s position in emerging markets and significantly expanding its portfolio in solid dose and sterile products. Eli Lilly also recently forged a cardiovascular-focused research deal with India’s Zydus Cadila. David Simmons, president and general manager of Pfizer’s Established Products Business Unit, said the company is open to discussions with pharmaceutical companies in emerging markets that offer unique capabilities and product offerings.

Despite their growth potential, emerging markets do present some challenges for global PR. Russia, India, and China, as well as countries in Latin America, have large and extremely varied consumer audiences, different time zones, languages, cultures and media practices. With this in mind, there is an increasing need for global campaigns to be integrated, impactful and delivered in a medium that is both effective and appropriate for the country.

Such need for diversity may change the current dynamic for global campaigns which are mainly run from the US and Europe. Could the next 15 years see a power shift in which countries drive PR campaigns?

According to the recent Future of Communications survey Ruder Finn conducted, the answer is yes… though eventually and incredibly cautiously.

The ‘cautiously’ part is hardly surprising - in the regulatory environment that surrounds healthcare communications, especially prescription products, caution prevails.  Facilitating greater dialogue around prescription medicines raises a whole host of issues from the interpretation of promotion versus non-promotion through to complications around adverse risk reporting.  This cautious attitude is further amplified by the nature of the regulations surrounding digital communications. Although some regulatory bodies, like the ABPI in the UK, have taken steps to try and set down rules governing digital media, they are still peppered with ‘grey areas’.  Where some industries have already taken the plunge and are happily doing backstroke, the healthcare sector has only just rolled up a trouser leg and dipped a toe in the water.

It is important of course to exercise caution, but the ‘eventually’ bit of my answer is also important.  Not only must healthcare companies start to embrace digital communications in order to stay relevant, but if this does not happen, it will miss out on a consistently growing audience and medium with which to reach them.

Market research tells us that patients, carers and healthcare professionals use the internet more and more for health information.  In fact at a nurse advisory board I recently attended, the majority of the room stated that they often go online during consultations with patients to look up queries.  They of course had some favoured, trusted sources, but they were Googled nonetheless.  I also think of myself and my family - I’ll often consult the internet prior to consulting a GP and older members of my family have carried out extensive research on their conditions to find out more about their treatment options.

Information is out there, whether pharma companies want it to be or not, and people are accessing it.

The healthcare industry is full of intelligent and sophisticated marketeers who recognise this ‘evolution’ is taking place and want to be part of it. Our own experience tells us that some pharma companies are doing great work monitoring social media and reacting to issues. But the key word is ‘reacting’. It is the proactive work that is difficult and the bottom line is nobody wants to be first to run a big digital campaign.  But proactivity doesn’t have to mean taking risks. Healthcare will eventually fully embrace the digital age but it won’t be done in great leaps but small incremental steps.  Only by doing these small steps will regulatory departments, who are key to this change ever occuring, come on board.

So what do we mean by small steps? It’s doing a few simple things well.  Maybe that is sponsored links on google to ensure responsible web sites appear at the top of searchs when people look for counterfeit products. How about non-branded educational videos on Youtube, more of these are starting to appear now. Holding online advisory boards on secure networks, which are far more cost effective and allow flexibility for the participants. We could go on.

The way patients and healthcare professionals search for information and interact with each other has changed.  Therefore it stands to reason that how healthcare companies communicate with these audiences also has to change. This will happen and, to a certain extent, is already happening but it will take time and it will take a lot of small steps.

As a 26 year old woman it’s hard not to feel moved by Jade Goody’s battle with cervical cancer. Not only is Jade having to face leaving her children and partner, but also her own mortality. At an age where Jade should be going out with friends and buying shoes, she is writing her will, settling her affairs and preparing her funeral.

However, Jade’s legacy may extend beyond Big Brother, bad boyfriends and racial slurs. Women across the nation have followed Jade’s story and booked the smear test they’d been putting off for months.  The Daily Mail reported that the number of women having smear tests has gone up by more than 20 per cent as a result of the publicity around her story highlighting the significant role she is playing in increasing awareness of cervical cancer.

Today Sun Woman launched Jade’s Legacy - a campaign with her backing - to raise cervical cancer awareness and to get the screening age in England lowered from 25 back down to 20. Through exploiting the media to ultimately raise money for her children, Jade has caused a ripple of consciousness that may in turn save the lives of hundreds of women across the county.

The Jade Effect doesn’t stop with cervical screening. The subject of palliative care is finally receiving the media attention it deserves with an article in the Sun today dispelling the myths commonly associated with the treatment of terminally ill people.

Although there is no longer hope for Jade, her lifelong courtship with the media has finally paid off.