Perspectives on the forces shaping health

As a producer for one of the national Sunday morning news shows, I saw my fair share of seriously bad pitches.

The newest trends in kids’ backpacks, a new vitamin supplement that promises renewed energy and vigor, a ribbon-cutting event for a local pet grooming shop—why in the world would a national, political Sunday morning public affairs show that tracks the miniate details and developments on Capitol Hill run a segment on any of these topics?

The answer, of course, is that they wouldn’t.

If you’re looking to engage the national media, avoid journalists’ worst nightmare – the blind pitch.

I spent years of my life enduring a steady stream of impersonal pitches from agencies that had clearly never watched our show and had no concept of what we were interested in. For most producers at the national level, blind pitches go directly in the trash. However, a well-researched and relevant pitch can make all the difference, helping you drive a positive media narrative that will elevate your brand and story.

1. Fit into a Broader Trend

The best pitches come from people who are mindful of the way their story fits into a broader movement. Before putting together a pitch, it is always worth asking yourself how your story illuminates a larger trend or framework at play – whether that’s part of the debate on Capitol Hill or in your community. Journalists are motivated by trends, so being able to answer that question will help you craft a pitch that can get good traction with reporters.

As a producer, health care stories often sparked my interest. Patient care, access and quality are top of mind for many Americans, and therefore fundamentally interesting to journalists. Leading up to the 2018 midterm elections, 71 percent of voters said health care is “very important” in making their voting decision – a powerful data point that shows health care stories matter to people across the country.

2. Add Value to the Relationship

When approaching journalists, remember that it’s a two-way street. To build beneficial relationships with reporters, you must consider how you can help them. Fortunately, journalists want to talk to people that can make them smarter on an issue, and for companies looking to expand their reputation and credibility on an issue, expertise and background can be deeply valuable. Many journalists—a lot of the good ones, anyway—are open to hearing from someone who can provide a fuller picture of an issue they’re covering.

3. Lay the Groundwork Early

Timing is everything. Even if it was a great idea, I often had to turn down pitches because there wasn’t enough lead time to do the story right. If you come across a story idea that you think might be a great fit for a particular reporter or publication, share it early. Then, when it’s fully formed and ready for launch you will have already laid the groundwork, and the reporter will be more open to your idea when you circle back.

4. Follow Up Mindfully

Another important step to be mindful of is the follow-up. If you’ve followed up with a reporter twice and they’re still not responding, it’s time to drop it. If you continue to push your pitch, it will only irritate the reporter. Worse, you’ll condition the reporter to dismiss your future pitches.

Which brings me back to the pitch about that new, local pet grooming shop. I got four follow-ups, and eventually had to write back asking to be removed from their pitch list. Truly a lose-lose scenario.

Bottom line: Pitching reporters is a lot like interviewing for a job you want. To set yourself up for success, you need to do your research and offer something of value. And if they aren’t interested, be understanding and grateful for their time. You never know when another opportunity will come around.

Former CVS Health Communications Leader Joins Firm as Senior Advisor for Corporate
Communications

David Palombi, previously the head of corporate communications at CVS Health, has joined Reservoir
Communications Group as a senior advisor.

During his time at CVS, David oversaw communications around the company’s bold anti-tobacco initiative as
well as the company’s acquisition of Aetna. Before joining CVS, Palombi served as the Senior Vice
President for Corporate Communications at Wellpoint, Inc. (subsequently known as Anthem, Inc.).

“David has had a front-row seat to some of the most consequential changes in our health care system,”
said Robert Schooling, President of Reservoir. “We believe that David’s experience gives him a unique
perspective on building brand and reputation as well as navigating complex issues of finance, public policy
and organizational change. We’re excited to share his experience with our clients.”

“Reservoir is bringing something different to the market that I find particularly appealing – a real
understanding of health care and policy combined with an expertise in how to manage proactive corporate
communications. I’m excited to be part of their growing team,” said Palombi.

About Reservoir Communications Group

Reservoir Communications Group is a leading public affairs firm focused on supporting clients with their most
pressing challenges and opportunities in the areas of advocacy, reputation, and organizational brand. The
Reservoir team brings extensive experience managing many of the top health care policy and reputation issues
over the past two decades. Learn more at reservoircg.

Stone joins from PhRMA Policy & Research Team

Reservoir Communications Group announced new additions to the firm, expanding its health care policy and
public affairs expertise. Gretta Stone, who previously served as Deputy Vice President of Policy and
Research at the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), will bring her deep
knowledge to Reservoir’s broader health care advocacy, branding and reputation work on behalf of its
clients.

Reservoir Communications Group is a leading communications and public affairs firm focused on helping
corporations and industries with their most pressing challenges and opportunities in the areas of
advocacy, reputation and organizational brand. The Reservoir team brings extensive experience
managing many of the top health policy and reputation issues over the past two decades.

“As Reservoir continues to grow, we’re thrilled to have Gretta at the table,” Robert Schooling, founder
and president, said. “Gretta brings an understanding of science, policy and communications as well as an
appreciation for how all the various parts of the health care system must work together to bring value
to patients.”

“Reservoir gives me the chance to bring together everything I’ve learned over the years about policy,
advocacy and reputation and apply that for clients,” said Stone.

In her previous role as PhRMA’s Deputy Vice President of Policy & Research, Gretta managed a
range of issues related to the value of medicines, the R&D process, FDA regulation and
personalized medicine. Gretta authored a range of industry reports and publications, including the
annual Biopharmaceutical Industry Profile, an overview of the sector and a go-to source of
data on the industry. In her more than fifteen years at PhRMA, she worked extensively on orphan drugs,
cancer, the biopharmaceutical pipeline, the research ecosystem, the cost of medicines and marketing
and promotion. Gretta also serves on the board of the Society for Women’s Health Research, an
organization dedicated to advancing our understanding of the biological differences in disease and
advocating to enhance women’s health. Prior to joining PhRMA, Gretta worked in a lab researching
language and the brain at Georgetown University, where she received a Bachelor of Science in biology.

Further building its health care public affairs team, Reservoir also welcomed Kira Finkel and Danielle
Apfel. Kira previously served a health policy analyst at Capview Strategies where she supported
policy development and advocacy campaigns on behalf of clients across the pharmaceutical, hospital and
health insurance industries. Prior to joining Capview Strategies, Kira previously worked as a research
assistant at Johns Hopkins University and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health where she
assisted in a variety of public health research projects and clinical trials. She began her career as a
Cancer Research Training Award Fellow at the National Cancer Institute at NIH. She graduated with a
Master of Science in Public Health from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Danielle joins Reservoir from AARP Campaign Outreach where she supported advocacy communications on the
organization’s state and federal policy priorities. She previously served as a press intern in the
offices of Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) where she provided frontline
support for local and in-district press operations. She graduated from The George Washington University
with a Masters of Professional Studies in Legislative Affairs.

About Reservoir Communications Group

Reservoir Communications Group is a leading public affairs firm focused on supporting clients with their
most pressing challenges and opportunities in the areas of advocacy, reputation, and organizational
brand. The Reservoir team brings extensive experience managing many of the top health care policy and
reputation issues over the past two decades. Learn more at reservoircg.

Reservoir Communications Group announced that Susan Awad, Tyler Calnon and Louise
Serio recently joined to support the firm’s health care advocacy and media relations efforts.

Reservoir Communications Group is a leading public affairs firm focused on supporting clients with their
most pressing challenges and opportunities in the areas of advocacy, reputation and organizational
brand. The Reservoir team brings extensive experience managing many of the top health care policy and
reputation issues over the past two decades.

All three individuals build on Reservoir’s knowledge and expertise navigating the complex advocacy and
media environment. Awad joins from the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) where she served as
both policy advisor and director of advocacy and government affairs. Calnon supported national health
care advocacy and reputation campaigns as part of his role at APCO Worldwide. Serio previously served as
White House producer for CBS News where she was on the frontlines covering the White House and
the Trump Administration.

“Reservoir Communications Group exists to bring the best people and ideas to bear on our clients’
work,” Robert Schooling, founder and president, said. “From Susan’s work responding to one of the
nation’s most pressing public health crises, to Louise’s time crisscrossing the country covering the
Administration, and Tyler’s support and precision in managing national advocacy campaigns, we are
thrilled to have them joining our team.”

Awad served in multiple capacities at ASAM before joining Reservoir, including various policy roles for
the organization. She began her career at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as a Presidential
Management Fellow before moving to Sanofi Pasteur, ASAM and APCO Worldwide. She graduated from
the University of Florida with a bachelor’s degree in economics and received her master’s
degree in economics from the University of Virginia.

Calnon began his career at APCO Worldwide, joining the firm in 2013. During that time, he managed
national brand and advocacy campaigns for a range of health care clients, including one of the largest
health insurance providers in the country. He previously served as an intern for former
Rep. Allyson Schwartz as well as Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania. He also was an
economic policy intern at the Center for American Progress. Calnon graduated from George Washington
University with a master’s degree in public policy.

Prior to serving as the White House producer for CBS News, Serio was an associate producer
for Face the Nation where she was part of the Emmy-Award winning team responsible for the
weekly news program. Serio began her career at CBS News during the summer of 2012 where she
supported the network’s coverage of the Democratic National Convention. She is a graduate of Vassar
College with a degree in American Studies.

About Reservoir Communications Group

Reservoir Communications Group is a leading public affairs firm focused on supporting clients with their
most pressing challenges and opportunities in the areas of advocacy, reputation, and organizational
brand. The Reservoir team brings extensive experience managing many of the top health care policy and
reputation issues over the past two decades. Learn more at reservoircg

One of the most difficult tasks for human beings is to agree on the worth of anything.

Your masterpiece of modern art might be my eyesore, my collector’s item might be your clutter. However, perhaps nowhere is the complexity of assessing value more complicated than in health care.

Because of the mediated nature of health care and its variety of direct and indirect payers (government, individuals, insurers, employers), the nature of value is complex.

Consider the recent OpEd by Dr. Zeke Emanuel arguing that while new cancer therapies are almost miraculous, and could soon cure many more people, that society as a whole can’t afford them. This is a perfect illustration of the conundrum of value in health care — the more valuable the product, the more likely there will be social demand to provide it for a reduced cost.

The current environment puts a tremendous burden on innovators to ensure that they are communicating the value of their products to the entire range of health care stakeholders, before, during, and after product launch. Innovators need to consider that just as their products have multiple audiences, they also have multiple values – clinical, social, and economic – and be prepared to make the case on each of these bases.

Increasingly, innovators are factoring value-assessment criteria into R&D programs, but this is a partial answer. Innovators must also factor in the broader policy and social environment in which their product comes to market.

How does one do that effectively? First, consider that a product comes to market within the context of a disease. It’s important to establish the burden of that disease and the prospect for patients. As an example, I think too often as a society we talk about disease in the abstract, but when we truly understand the suffering that accompanies a disease our own assessment of the value of treating that disease changes.

In addition, one area where there has been insufficient work done is with employers. Large employers are footing the bill for health care and, yet, they are often not engaged enough in understanding the long-term prognosis for disease and the options for treatment.

However, merely focusing on the individual products risks underselling the total value proposition. Acknowledging legal and regulatory limits, innovators must also communicate their aspirations across their portfolio and pipeline, conscious of how those aspirations fit into broader societal needs.

In addition, particularly where products might be groundbreaking, there is a need to engage payers and regulators up-front to help communicate which clinical benefits are most important to patients, as well as begin to explore innovative payment mechanisms. It is important to demonstrate that products are brought to market with a recognition that they fit within the broader array of health care costs.

Finally, innovators need to be thinking creatively about what must change in policy to facilitate new payment models and new approaches to encouraging high value care across the board.

There has been good work done in articulating policy changes that can support the move to value-based payment, but more can be done. It’s critical that innovators engage with patients, providers, insurers, and policymakers about ways in which the system can be reformed to make it more responsive to patient needs while still being affordable for those who foot the bill.

There is no magic formula, but if innovation is to be valued, there is a need to communicate its value.

It seems like everywhere you look technology players are looking to disrupt the status quo in health care. Microsoft, Google, Apple, and even Uber have all made big investments in health care. Major health care players, like UnitedHealth Group and their Optum unit are making massive investments in better data and artificial intelligence to help improve health care delivery. On top of that, Google’s recent $375-million-dollar investment in Oscar, the health insurer, points to a technology trajectory that will change the way consumers interact with the health system.

But is it enough?

The health care system is on the ropes. Costs continue to sky-rocket and consumers are being asked to take on ever-increasing portions of their health care costs, often at levels that are unaffordable and discourage care. Layer on top of that a massive wave of chronic disease, and we’re facing the perfect storm for a health care meltdown. In fact, one report found that the next generation of seniors will be markedly less healthy with substantially higher rates of diabetes than current seniors. This inevitably puts a greater strain on an already burdened Medicare program.

On the bright side, our health care choices have improved dramatically – there are more and better medicines, medical devices, and diagnostics than ever before. It was just fifty years ago when about all your doctor could do for you is to say, “Take two aspirin and call me in the morning.” Today patients have a range of options.

So how do we ensure access to these new medical technologies?

Some argue that we should consolidate control of the health care system under the government to save money. Putting aside the fiscal and economic problems with that for a moment, it does nothing to address the real issue: how are we treating people in the health care system?

So, is big data and artificial intelligence just the latest fad in health care or can it make a fundamental difference in bending the cost curve?

From our perspective, the answer is not if it will make a big difference, but when. The good news is that it would be hard to have a less efficient system than we have today – so we can only go up! The virtually real-time market responses that exist in most areas of commerce are almost entirely absent from health care.

In part this is due to third party payment models, but it is also due to the siloes in health care and to the fact that the system was conceived largely to deal with acute episodes of hospitalization, rather than to manage the tidal wave of chronic diseases that now flood the system. It was never envisioned that health care would require such routine coordination with such a large number of people. This is a perfect problem for technology to solve. Coordinating millions of inputs and outputs and making sense of it.

Of course, the “how” of making that come to pass is incredibly complicated, but there are three simple “whats” that we need to focus on:

1. We need to educate and activate patients before they enter the health care system, rather than after. Once a patient is in the ER, it is too late. Instead, when patients understand their options and when they are self-motivated to do something about their health, therein lies the sweet spot for designing effective interventions and care delivery. It allows us to interact with consumers at the moment they need assistance and help them find the right resource for their immediate needs.

2. We need to anticipate illness and prevent it. Predictive modeling can help us anticipate when a patient is likely to trigger an episode of care that could be averted, but the trend of artificial intelligence in health care should not come at the expense of human judgment and interaction. We need to utilize technology to support, not replace, the type of patient-provider interaction and discussion that is needed to effectively help them navigate the system and their care.

3. We need to genuinely commit the entire health care system to paying for value, but also designing health care so that patients want value too. That requires us to be able to better measure value and, importantly, to give feedback to doctors, hospitals, and others in real-time about their performance, so they can adjust.

The potential cost savings from greater efficiency in health care are massive. Those cost savings can then be deployed to help us afford the advancements in health care that are so exciting.

The Cancer Moonshot is a great idea – but if we really want to transform our system we need a Data Moonshot as well. Let’s identify the barriers in the way of speeding adoption of better data collection, better value assessment and reporting, and greater use of telemedicine, just to name a few. These challenges are solvable and solving them would improve the lives of all Americans.

We recently wrote about the results of our survey of health policy leaders and who they saw as leading influence on value-based payment for pharmaceuticals. In that same survey, we also looked at which groups and individuals health policy leaders think are leading on Medicare Advantage – the increasingly popular health program for seniors.

Our research found that, top of mind, respondents identified America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) as the single-most influential organization on the issue of Medicare Advantage, followed by the Better Medicare Alliance. Respondents said of AHIP, “they successfully frame issues and achieve policy goals,” and they, “represent the collective voice of the health insurance industry.” Anthem, Humana, and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association also had a strong showing.

When given a list of organizations to rank by level of influence, AHIP and UnitedHealth Group were locked in a dead heat for the top spot, while on the individual level, former CMS Administrator Andy Slavitt and American Action Forum president Doug Holtz-Eakin led the pack, with Paul Ginsburg of Brookings, Ken Thorpe of Emory University and Jim Capretta of AEI all considered highly influential as well.

To learn more about the results, feel free to contact us.

Value-based payment in pharmaceuticals is a hot topic in health policy these days. We thought it would be good to understand who is most influential in shaping policy and opinion on the topic and why. Fortunately, we talk routinely with the national thought leaders whose opinions matter, so we asked them what they thought.

Reservoir surveyed some of our network of high-level health policy leaders and asked them to weigh-in on who is most influential on the topic of value-based payment in pharmaceuticals. Here’s what they said:

• The trade group representing the biopharmaceutical industry, PhRMA, is overwhelmingly ranked as the most influential organization by respondents. Top of mind, 62% named them as the single most influential organization, followed by 15% who named the think tank organization Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) as the most influential. PhRMA’s influence was perceived as driven from political power, while ICER’s was driven from academic/professional influence.

• When asked to rank individuals, Peter Bach of Memorial Sloan Kettering, Steve Pearson of ICER, and Mark McClellan of the Duke University Margolis Center for Health Policy were in a virtual dead-heat for the most influential. Troy Brennan of CVS Health and Steve Miller of Express Scripts were in 4th and 5th place respectively.

• Specifically looking at payer organizations, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) topped the list of most influential.

• While PhRMA stayed at the top looking specifically at biopharmaceutical organizations, Pfizer, BIO, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly and Merck also had strong showings.

• Among these high-level health policy leaders, the Washington Post, New York Times, Politico and the Wall Street Journal were most often read for general policy and politics news and Health Affairs, Politico Pulse/Pro, Kaiser Health News, and Washington Post/Health 202 were most often read for health policy-specific news.

To learn more about these results or other insights into who is shaping the health care environment, feel free to contact us.

You can’t swing a dead cat in Washington, D.C. without hitting a trade association or someone who works for one. With nearly 8,000 national trade associations in the United States—2,000 of which are headquartered Inside the Beltway—nearly every industry and business in America has someone looking out for their best policy interests with lawmakers and influencers.

There is a fair amount of debate over what makes an effective and powerful trade association—how do different attributes work for or against them?

Size—Trade groups come in every shape and size. Some of the smaller trades have a half-dozen members, while larger trades have hundreds. There are even a handful of behemoth associations that average members in the hundreds of thousands, which translates to a healthy balance sheet and a lot constituents knocking on a lot of Capitol Hill doors. However, while “big” can often mean “powerful,” large trades have to juggle competing views from a myriad of members, which can lead to watered down priorities and messaging, or a lack of general consensus on even significant issues. On the flip side, while one would assume that it’s easier to reach a consensus in the smallest trades, members may believe this structure affords them more opportunity to dig in their heels in support of their own positions.

Scope—Trade groups that represent various factions of industries also have to deal with splintering issues. U.S. vs global, big vs little, manufacturer vs supplier—while these groups may fall under the same “industry”, they likely have opposing policy objectives and competing interests. Yet, when these groups reach a consensus, their vast footprint carries serious clout.

Member Engagement—The jury is still out on what “level” of membership engagement is the most effective for trade groups. The trades that engage almost solely at the CEO-level, for example, are usually well-positioned to move quickly by going straight to the top for decisions. However, in many cases, engagement from non-C-Suite employees can increase the effectiveness of the trade. Just a few levels down from the top, employees often have a more granular scope, and those details can greatly impact message, ability or outcome.

Representation—Some trades, by virtue of their membership, have a built-in advantage. Representing a popular political constituency, such as small business, vs. a less popular constituency often allows them to start off on friendlier footing; however, no organization can take any advantage for granted. They have to deliver for their members and maintain their clout on Capitol Hill.

Regardless of the trade group attributes, one thing is certain: those who are working hard to be effective and relevant don’t have an easy task.

Advocating on behalf of an industry—particularly a highly-regulated industry—can be extremely technical and constantly demanding. Trade group employees are part negotiators and part policy experts, trying to zero in on the path of least resistance and make their members happy, all while moving the legislative or regulatory needle and keeping the media headlines positive—or, let’s be honest, even neutral. They receive calls at all hours of the day and night, have hostile reporters shuffled their way, and often have to defend business decisions or practices they didn’t create. Case in point—when an industry is in hot water, who appears on 60 Minutes? The trade association. All the while, they may get flack from their members or be held to impossibly high standards. And did I mention that trade groups with overlapping membership are in stiff and constant competition with each other?

So, after painting this challenging picture—is there an upside to industry trade groups?

Absolutely.

By representing an entire industry, trade groups are seen as reasonable (albeit biased) experts. Influencers trust them because they aren’t carrying the water for any one person or company, but are advocating for the greater industrial good. Moreover, trades are able to see the forest through the trees and tell a positive, collective story, whereas individual companies can get tripped up by day-to-day news or minutia.

The most effective trade groups go after top-notch D.C. talent, employing experts with tremendous reach into the halls of Congress, the regulatory agencies or with influential media. Highly-effective trade associations have significant resources and understand how to deploy that influence in Washington, taking on legislative challenges—not to mention actual lawmakers—that individual companies could never do alone.

Some trades are considered so influential, that some organizations—even some on the Fortune 500 list—have decided to forego establishing their own offices in Washington, and rely solely on trades to represent their views with policymakers.

Finally, trades have an opportunity to build goodwill and strengthen an industry’s status across-the-board, something that is invaluable if—ok, when—that industry is facing strong regulatory, legislative or reputational headwinds.

So, whether you’re represented by the American Petroleum Institute or the American Pyrotechnic Association, the role of trades as effective advocates for almost any interest should not and cannot be discounted.