health pr News

GPs put Obesity Back on the Health Agenda

iNova recently brought its second National Obesity Forum (iNOF) to Adelaide..
Read more

Palin shortlisted for 2014 Asia-Pacific SABRE Awards

The Palin team is extremely proud to be shortlisted for the 2014 Asia-P..
Read more

Pilot of bowel cancer test launches in the Blue Mountains

Clinical Genomics recently launched a pilot of its blood test for bowel..
Read more

PM opens new facilities for The Shepherd Centre

Tony Abbott recently demonstrated his support for children with hearing los..
Read more

Early intervention triggers social success for hearing impaired kids

New research has revealed the social benefits of early intervention for chi..
Read more

palin Video Blog

The recent panel on “Medicalising Normality” at the Melbourne Festiva..
Read more

Ever wondered how health and medical news stories actually get put together? ..
Read more

Ever wondered what healthcare PR consultants do? This video blog is a..
Read more

The Australian Charities and Not for Profit Commission looks set to be a reality ..
Read more

The money or the box? Are you planning disease awareness or fundraising? Or both..
Read more

The demand for increased transparency around healthcare professional sponsorships has..
Read more

Promoting health-related news is a competitive business. Every day there are winners ..
Read more

There are certain months when journalists are looking for certain types of stories. ..
Read more

Another day another stunt. But how do you secure media interest? And having done tha..
Read more

If you could use PR to help secure public funding for your organisation or product, t..
Read more

CASE STUDIES

Huge media interest in new bowel cancer test

Palin Communications teamed up with Clinical Genomics on the 2nd November to anno..
Read more

MARTY'S MEDICAL MUSINGS

What does silence say?

Martin Palin - Tuesday, September 16, 2014
There is a nice little research project for some Communications Masters student who is interested in the question of how Australians respond to a “declined to be interviewed” or “was not available to comment” in investigative media reports.

Media trainers and PR types are prone to speculate that it implies the organisation or the person has something to hide. It is signal of evasion or negativity. But they don’t really know. Maybe listeners are so sceptical of some media outlets these days that they forgive people for not offering themselves up to be hammered.

Personally I’m always left with a negative impression of organisations that decline to give their side of the story. Professionally I encourage all my clients to look at interview requests as an opportunity to tell their side of a yarn. 

For me it’s hard to ignore the correlation between negativity and evasiveness on the one hand versus positivity and openness on the other.
Richard Branson has built a remarkable global profile by being clever and open with the media. Not everyone needs to do stunts with models and dress up in crazy outfits but he does frame an interesting comparison to media shy Australian business figures. 

The considered decision of people like Nathan Tinkler and Gina Rinehart to avoid the media and consistently decline media interviews clearly influences our perception of them. It’s only via the media that we can shape any kind of perception of them at all. 

Let’s say you are driving home from work on a normal Monday listening to the radio. When James Hardie is criticised for inadequate provisions in the compensation fund for asbestos victims and “no-one was available” to explain the challenges associated with maintaining such a fund, what do you make of that? (James Hardie plans to alter victim payouts, PM, 15/9/14)

You have dinner and settle in front of Four Corners with a cup of tea. When James Packer’s Crown is investigated in a media expose on the regulation of Australian casinos and no-one from Crown is “available for comment”, what impression does that leave on you? (High Rollers – High Risk; Four Corners 15/9/14)

I know the lawyers and regulatory people are always banging on about the risks of doing interviews you “can’t control” and journalists who have “made up their mind”. The reality is that talented spokespeople can always exert a level of control. And good journalists are trained not to have made up their mind before investigating all sides.

So consider the risks of NOT doing the interview. That is, the risk of being portrayed negatively. The risk of people making up their mind about you and your business based on your reluctance to tell your side of the story. Consider the impact you have had on the journalist's initial intention to portray you fairly. You have made their job to provide a balanced report harder.

Of course there are times when it does make sense to decline an interview. I’d decline if you do not have a talented spokesperson who can deal with the situation with which you are faced or where you’ve been given too little notice to confirm the context for the story or the interest of the journalist.
And yes there are always risks associated with doing interviews no matter what the context.

But you know what? There are sometimes even bigger risks associated with not doing them – and that is certainly worth reflecting on the next time you are faced with the dilemma.

Reducing the risk of death

Martin Palin - Tuesday, June 03, 2014
There was a story in the Sydney Morning Herald on the weekend (31/5/14 p19) that was about how people who leave prison are more likely commit suicide than the general community. I get all this – my first job out of university was in the NSW Department of Corrective Services interviewing prisoners about how they were being treated in jail. Even a young psychology graduate like me could tell lots of these guys were going to leave jail troubled, unhappy, dislocated and dysfunctional.

But it’s quite another thing to suggest – as the journalist did – that prisoners leave jail with “a higher risk of death than people outside.” Because guess what? The risk of death is pretty absolute and it is something that is coming for us all. 

You see these odd descriptions in reporting on cancer medicines too, where the focus is typically on “survival rates”. A survival rate is time-limited and the patients are not necessarily cured.  Because no one survives forever.

The key issue relates to “premature death”. Lifestyle choices (smoking, getting screened for cancer, eating well, exercising etc) affect your risk of premature death. 

But let’s not mince words. We’re all going to die. Keeping your cholesterol down might possibly add a few years to your total time on the planet – but that’s it.

This idea that we can “reduce the risk of death” is important in a whole range of discussions about palliative care, dying with dignity, cancer diagnoses and healthy ageing. 

I’ve worked on the marketing and PR for lots of new expensive oncology medicines. On my count most of them offer (on average) somewhere between 2 and 8 months additional months of life compared to not using them. They are important months. Enough time for people to get their affairs in order and say some emotional goodbyes to people they love. But we shouldn’t pretend we have decreased their chances of dying.   

I also heard an ICU nurse on radio last week lamenting the words from relatives that send a shudder through her when helping very sick elderly patients with limited options. “Do whatever you can. Never mind the expense.”

We’re all going to go. 

I hope I can keep my dignity and relativism when I’m older. When the diagnosis comes and I’m weighing up my treatment options I’ll just remind myself that no treatment or surgery can reduce my risk of death. That no-one can “save me no matter the cost”. 

I’m determined to leave with dignity. Or at the very least die trying. 

Martin Palin 
Managing Director, Palin Communications
martin@palin.com.au 



Price signals and medical care

Martin Palin - Wednesday, May 14, 2014

In Joseph Heller’s legendary ‘70’s novel Catch 22, archetypal free profiteer Milo Minderbinder is astounded that the novel’s protagonist Yossarian is granted “all the dried fruit he wants” as part of his recovery from war trauma.

Milo is incredulous as he reads the prescription that Doc Daneeka has written. Milo is driven by market efficiencies and the prospect of a fair profit for all. So his head spins at such an open prescription. “All the dried fruit you want?” he says to Yossarian. “You don’t even have to eat it. Or need it”.

All the talk of price signals, health system efficiencies and co-payments related to the Federal Budget took me back to Milo’s credo that prices act to drive efficiencies.

I’m an old public health guy whose dad was a union shop steward from the north of England.  So I was raised to understand the importance of welfare and publicly funded health services.

But making something free won’t guarantee it is delivered efficiently or that those resources will be allocated only to those who genuinely need them.

So I’ve come to appreciate the role of “market forces” in the health system. For example, who has an immediate, driven, tangible incentive to keep Australians out of hospital? The government? Not really, because any long-sighted investment in disease prevention will only deliver a tangible return for future governments.

The people who have the greatest to gain from keeping people out of hospital are those who under-write much of the costs. That is, the private health insurance funds.

So why not let them incentivise GPs to do more preventive work and disease management? Why not let them offer lower premiums to members who lose weight or stop smoking?

They can’t do either of these things because current health policy does not allow it.

As for the co-payment on GP visits – it’s clearly a mechanism for driving efficiency. It is there to maximise the prospect of the service being necessary for the person who is seeking it.

And yes, to all you Catch 22 aficionados, I know Milo ended up bombing his own squadron to make a profit via a contract with the enemy.

But on the risks associated with prescriptions that let patients take as much as they want for free without having to demonstrate a need or pay a price – I think he was ahead of his time.

Martin Palin, Managing Director 

The trend toward independent agencies in healthcare PR

Martin Palin - Thursday, February 13, 2014

Many years ago I had a letter published in one of the marketing magazines in response to an article about a multi-national pharmaceutical company that had awarded its entire diversified marketing budget to one global holding company on the promise of greater integration.

I said in the letter that I couldn’t see the logic because the market place knows that talented people work for a range of different agencies of varying sizes for a heap of different reasons. There’s just no logic in believing that one holding company will have either a local or global monopoly on all the brightest people across PR, media strategy, advertising creative, content marketing and market research.

Plus I reckoned the people from the different teams under the umbrella of the holding company were likely beavering away in their own silos and had probably never even met each other.

My view still holds and was also recently verified (certainly at the level of the individual PR agency) over a cup of coffee with a colleague from the public affairs department of big pharmaceutical company.

He had just overseen the process by which his company had settled on a panel of “preferred specialist PR agencies”. So preferred in fact that the marketing team was prevented from commissioning any PR agencies or any PR work from consultancies outside the list. No correspondence entered into.

The company had developed a set of criteria built around capacity, experience, value for money, terms of business, hourly rates and a raft of other quality measures. His job was to scour the market and secure the best possible PR agencies for his restricted panel. And guess what?

Every agency selected was independent, medium sized and still owned by the principal. Every selected agency.

It’s more than just the arithmetic. Most clients can work out that while a multinational PR agency might have 30 consultants in total, only 5 or 6 of those typically (if they are going well) will be exclusively in the healthcare team. So their teams are the same size as the well-established independent specialist health PR agencies (like Palin Communications and our independent competitors).

The preference for independent agencies is underpinned by the demand for commitment, longevity and experience.

Clients that examine the relative benefits of independent versus big multi-national agencies see the value in having an agency with the key guy’s name on the door. They know that the quality of the agency’s work is the only thing standing between the principal being out of business and the staff being unemployed. So it’s unlikely the team will be cutting too many corners or disappearing any time soon.

So the next time the question of “global agency versus specialist independent” comes up, think about the capacity, experience and commitment of the relative teams. Avoid getting distracted by nonsense about “global footprints” and “international integration”. Because it is capacity, experience and commitment that is going to get you the best PR result.

So think independent.

The Palin team. Proudly independent and specialised.

When diseases are no laughing matter

Martin Palin - Tuesday, October 08, 2013

I happily entered into the spirit of things as part of a panel at the recent “Festival of Ideas” session on “Medicalising Normality

Industry critic Ray Moynihan was holding court and we had engaged the audience in the creation of a new disease – “Chronic Procrastination Syndrome” – or CPS we called it.

After 20 minutes we had a set of symptoms (constantly putting things off, a life dictated by delay), a screening tool (how long did it take you to agree to see the doctor, how long do you linger over a menu? etc) and an estimate of the overall cost to the community of CPS in terms of lost productivity and unmet ambition (clearly in the billions annually).

We had a slogan (“Act Now: CPS is real”), a celebrity ambassador and a date for an awareness day – but we decided to delay that by one week for strategic impact.

We were having a hoot and the audience were getting the hang of it. I was a bit worried they might think this is what actually happens. But at least they were getting a sense of how health campaigns get coordinated if not how diseases actually get defined.

Sometime earlier the panel had focused on a more practical debate about the relevance of prescribing data and prevalence figures in trying to determine whether or not ADHD was over diagnosed in Australia. (I thought it highly relevant others not so).

These were no academic or philosophical debates. The reality of them was highlighted the next day on Saturday October 6th when the Fairfax headline screamed “Suicide link to ADHD drug” – thereby triggering a broader media storm about the appropriateness of current prescribing levels.

I tweeted that this was exactly the kind of debate we had had at the Festival of Ideas.

Then on Sunday 7 October, it was bi-polar in the news when the News Ltd papers quoted a psychiatrist as saying the definition of bi-polar was so broad than almost anyone could now be diagnosed with it.

The definition of disease is no easy task. But I think there was at least one thing on which all the panellists at the Festival of Ideas agreed. It was that some people and some families are seriously affected by conditions like depression, bi-polar and ADHD. It would be tragic if their battles were made harder because debates about disease mongering and over-diagnosis trivialised the reality of those diseases and the challenges faced by those affected.

Or as a lady with ADHD said in her letter to the Herald in response to the original story, perhaps we should stop seeing “ADHD medication as creating a generation of zombies” we should focus on those people who are helped by it and see it as representing an “advance in medical science (SMH Letters 7/10/13).

I think those from the “over-diagnosis” school need to be specific in arguing for resources to be focused on those people who need them the most – ie, those who are at the more serious end of various conditions. Otherwise it just turns into disease denial and I can’t see how that is going to help anyone.

Unless of course that disease is Chronic Procrastination Syndrome in which case a little light-hearted fun and a lack of urgency to make a point are probably going to be ok.


Martin presents at the Festival of Ideas “In defence of disease awareness”.

© 2012 Palin Communications

NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP

Enter your details here to get the latest news and views from Palin Communications. 

By joining our mailing list you will receive email alerts for: 

Latest Palin Newsletters 

Best, 

Palin Team




Captcha Image
×