Joint replacements are the #1 expenditure of Medicare. The process of approving these medical devices is flawed according to the Institute of Medicine. It is time for patients' voices to be heard as stakeholders and for public support for increased medical device industry accountability and heightened protections for patients. Post-market registry. Product warranty. Patient/consumer stakeholder equity. Rescind industry pre-emptions/entitlements. All clinical trials must report all data.
Please share what you have learned!
Twitter: @JjrkCh
Showing posts with label deceptive marketing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label deceptive marketing. Show all posts

Monday, April 13, 2015

Hospital Marketing and Honesty



Online Hospital Promos a Marketing Catch-22

Marianne Aiello, for HealthLeaders Media , April 8, 2015

Accurately representing medical procedures online is a conundrum for hospital marketers, who risk scaring off potential patients by posting facts that would be better explained face-to-face by a physician. But there are ways to tackle this challenge.
Even for those of us who should know better, it's nearly impossible not to Google our health ailments. If you think you might have the flu or possibly sprained your ankle, typing symptoms into your phone's web browser is just plain easier than calling your physician's urgent care line.
And even with the knowledge that we're putting our privacy at risk, there's the alluring element of instant gratification, whether it's an alleviation of our fears or the piling on of even more serious concerns.
Informed healthcare consumers and savvy internet users have figured out how to navigate the plethora of results, choosing WebMD over Wikipedia, .org and .edu URLs over .coms. The Mayo Clinic has even gotten into the medical search game by offering up their doctors to fact check Google results for commonly searched conditions.
Hospital and health system websites have traditionally been above scrutiny in terms of providing accurate medical information— they've been safe harbors in a sea of amateurish Yahoo question boards and unwieldy Reddit threads. According to a recent study published in JAMA Internal Medicine, however, information posted on hospital websites is often misleading.
Promotion Presented as Fact 
"Valuable data and tools—including hospital quality ratings, professional treatment guidelines, and patient decision aids—are increasingly available via the Internet and may help patients facing decisions about where to seek care or whether to undergo a medical procedure," states JAMA's study, titled "Risks of Imbalanced Information on US Hospital Websites."
"Clinicians often encourage patients to engage with these types of information as a means of promoting patient involvement in medical decisions and offloading tasks from the too-brief clinical encounter. Unfortunately, valuable online health information may be hard to identify amid a growing number of online advertisements."
For the study, researchers looked at how the 317 US hospitals offering trans-aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are advertising the procedure. They found that while all of the hospitals touted the procedure as minimally invasive, just one-quarter mentioned the risks, and fewer than one in 20 explained those risks numerically.

"Our findings suggest that web-based advertising of TAVR to the public by hospitals may understate the established risks of this procedure and provide little context for the magnitude of those risks to inform patient decision making," the study reads. "Although consumers who are bombarded by television commercials may be aware that they are viewing an advertisement, hospital websites often have the appearance of [being] an education portal."
A Marketing Catch-22 
Accurately representing procedures online is a conundrum for hospital marketers, who are likely wary of scaring off potential patients by posting risks that would be better explained face-to-face by a physician. And, since this facet of hospital marketing isn't currently regulated, most hospitals probably aren't in a rush to slap a big fat warning label on their online procedure information when their competitor down the street isn't going to.
That said, for hospital websites to keep their pristine status in the public eye as providers of comprehensive medical information, marketing leaders need to reexamine how they're presenting their services online.
While it may take some creativity, there are ways to outline risks without sending patients into a panic. It's important to consider that a decent chunk of patients who are looking on your website about having a procedure done at your hospital have already read all about it on WebMD and are intimately familiar with even the most obscure worst-case scenarios. Those patients will be relieved to read your experts' explanation of those risks and the steps your hospital is taking to minimize them.
Embedded physician videos are a smart way to tackle this sort of sensitive subject, and can act as a stand-in for the face-to-face discussion the patient will ultimately have with their doctor. By explaining the risks in simple terms on video, physicians can simultaneously address patient concerns and win their trust.

It may take some getting used to, but transparency and good marketing aren't mutually exclusive. Smart organizations will take this study to heart and realize their website's copy should be held to higher standards than a billboard.

Monday, July 7, 2014

States probe failed implant deceptive marketing: Settlement in Oregon with J&J

By Karen Gullo Jul 2, 2014 4:20 PM CT

Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) will pay Oregon $4 million to resolve deceptive marketing claims over recalled metal-on-metal hip implants in its first accord with any governmental unit involving the devices.
While the sum is dwarfed by J&J’s earlier settlement of patient lawsuits linked to the ASR hip, the agreement may lead the way for additional accords as federal and multi-state probes continue into the company’s sales of the device.
“Oregonians in need of a hip replacement deserve to know that the artificial hip they are contemplating in fact has the qualities, and benefits, that a company advertises,” Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum said in a statement. “Doctors also need to know that the products they suggest to their patients meet certain standards.”
Oregon is at the forefront of the investigations, Rosenblum said. A group of state attorneys general is investigating how the hips were marketed, while the U.S. Justice Department and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Massachusetts are probing whether the company made false claims or false statements about the devices to federal health care programs, J&J said in a May regulatory filing.
Oregon began looking at the implants in 2011 and opened an investigation about a year before a multi-state probe began, state Assistant Attorney General David Hart said in a phone interview. J&J’s DePuy, the maker of the devices, began settlement discussions with state officials after they prepared a civil complaint, he said. DePuy sold 432 metal-on-metal, chromium and cobalt hip devices in Oregon from 2005 to 2010, according to Rosenblum.
Unfair Practices
The payment to the state resolves claims that the company violated Oregon’s unfair business practices law by telling patients and doctors that the hips functioned properly when evidence showed they were failing at unusually high rates.
“If other government entities obtained similar payments from DePuy based on the number of devices sold, it would be a very large number and significant deterrent,” Hart said. He declined to comment on the multi-state probe.
DePuy didn’t admit wrongdoing under the agreement, Mindy Tinsley, a DePuy spokeswoman, said in an e-mail, declining to comment on the probes.
J&J has voluntarily turned over documents responding to “informal” U.S. requests for information related to the hip device and is fully cooperating with the government’s civil investigation, the company said in the May regulatory filing.
Patient Suits
The company last year said it would pay at least $2.47 billion to resolve thousands of lawsuits over the implants. The agreement resolved about 8,000 U.S. suits against DePuy brought by patients who have already had artificial hips removed.
The New Brunswick, New Jersey-based company recalled 93,000 ASR hip implants worldwide in August 2010, saying 12 percent failed within five years.
J&J had touted the metal-on-metal implants, first sold in the U.S. in 2005, as a new design that would last 20 years and offer greater range of motion.
As failures mounted, patients complained in lawsuits that the implants caused dislocations, pain and follow-up surgeries known as revisions. They claimed that debris from the chromium and cobalt device caused tissue death and increased metal ions in the bloodstream.
To contact the reporter on this story: Karen Gullo in federal court in San Francisco at kgullo@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net Fred Strasser, Stephen Farr