Personal vs. Professional Brand Marketing

The potential ROI for internet marketing is astounding. For little to no cost, a company or individual can successfully market themselves on a global level through hundreds of web apps, social media channels, email marketing campaigns, and blogs (to name a few). This is an exceptional development and one that certainly levels the playing field between large companies and small businesses/nonprofits. The power to increase visibility and the reach of their message or brand is exponential.

The laws of both Moore and Metcalfe attribute to this. Moore's Law states that every 18 months processing power doubles, while cost remains the same. Metcalfe proposes that the value of a network grows by the value of N squared, when N = nodes (devices or users connected to the network). Cookies (more on these later) contribute greatly to the processing power of the internet, as networks like Facebook become wiser about the interests of individual users, enabling customized advertising and more direct marketing. At the same time, however, it is important to utilize internet marketing in a strategic manner. This is where the difference lies between personal and brand dialogue on the web.

Over time, I have come to realize that with the internet, sometimes "less is more." As a healthcare marketing professional, I always want to be aware of developments and understand how people are using sites -- but this doesn't mean that I jump on the band wagon and create an account for my company immediately. Sometimes, it is better to observe from a distance. Not all social sites are successful and it is important that you check out a site, before choosing to create an account. Affiliation = endorsement and in order to protect your brand, you have to implement a strategy for which sites you choose to use and scout things out in advance.

The difference between a personal account on Facebook, for example, and a brand page is substantial. Personal accounts are often used to share personal info (duh) about relationships, emotions, and daily life in a casual manner. Where this can be a very friendly, inviting approach to online interaction, it is not appropriate for a professional entity or healthcare organization. On a daily basis, I observe how my friends and family manage their personal accounts on Facebook, Twitter, or other social networking sites. Many people do not give much thought to how what they say on their page or sharing private information. They say what they want, to whomever they desire and they don't worry too much about the repercussions or how they appear to the outside world.

Professional brands cannot afford this luxury; they have a reputation to uphold and an obligation to their clients, investors, etc. The need for careful monitoring and clear strategy is especially true for healthcare organizations or hospitals, as they have a very high standard to adhere to and must follow protocol to protect patient confidentiality, in line with HIPAA. How can hospitals and healthcare orgs use social sites? I will discuss this soon in an upcoming post, but here's the short and sweet of it: healthcare orgs can use social media to share important health messages, improve visibility, market programs and services that they provide, and offer a place for dialogue. However, the web is NOT a place for medical diagnosis, clinical care or instruction. There may be some hospitals that employ secure chat rooms or LIVE interaction where patient health info is protected. Facebook is not one of these places -- yet.

Moral of the story: with the development of so many new technologies, it seems that the possibilities for interactive marketing are endless. A small company or program can gain a large national presence through the internet in a very short amount of time. Through Google and other search engines, brands can find out exactly what their clients want and put their product right in front of the target audience, satisfying both parties. However, without proper application these powerful tools can do more harm than good. It is important for a brand to set in place proper protocol for both internal and external internet marketing policy (including one specific to social media). The brand must consider what sites or apps it chooses to use and how these efforts will integrate into the overall marketing strategy.

This article is the part of a series of posts that I will make throughout my graduate studies in Marketing and Communications. With a focus on both healthcare and interactive marketing, I hope to gain a better understanding for effective health messaging--which I think plays a key role in a happy, healthy society. Please leave your comments or write to me: camorous@gmail.com.

Are we like the People of Panem?

For those of you with a PR day job, you must understand this sentiment: I come home from a long day at work and bask in the freedom to browse the internet for the fluffy stuff. I spend my 9-5 day staying up to date on hospital policy, clinical care, and research studies. In the evening, I ride the social wave. Interestingly, more often than not, my evening reads connect back directly to my day job. Several weeks ago, the hot topics on the internet were: the #HungerGames and #HealthCareReform.

Ever since then, I've been itching to dig into the on-going health care debate, especially after listening to a very compelling piece that NPR did several weeks ago on the second day of Obamacare hearings for the US Supreme Court. So for a moment, let's talk universal health care reform and then maybe we can get to the Hunger Games. 

I understand the reason for all of the hype. It's a big deal for the government to try to mandate something like health care, passing a law like this would set an impressive legal precedent. Even if one argues that the mandate would not infringe upon the constitutional rights of American citizens (which it could, the Supreme Court Justices have yet to determine this), it could also open the door to future legislation that crosses farther over this line. But here lies the problem: health care is essential to life and not everyone can afford it. Does everyone deserve it? I think most would agree that the answer is yes, but there are so many other factors at play here that add to the complexity of the issue.  The largest of which, I think, is freedom of choice. 

What's more interesting to me at the moment, is how the American public is reacting to the Supreme Court Hearings. So my thought is, let's take it to the people and see what they have to say via Twitter: 

@Vision365 @darbus69 it is your RIGHT to work and pursue thosethings you want, such as healthcare. I choose not to buy insurance.

Good point. RT “@BorowitzReport: Americans should not be forcedto spend money on healthcare that they could be spending onguns.”

RT @KateClinton: Shouldn't Supreme Court judges who havehealthcare recuse themselves from this case?

Dumb tweet of the day MT @Jimi_We If SCOTUS kills ACA allAmericans should refuse to provide healthcare for congressmenand SCOTUS.

Hands off my Healthcare! We need #Obamacare!

Why don't we apply successful principles of Internet (transparency, choice) to health care? http://bit.ly/GZ7GoR 

Healthcare going down? Back 2 millions being uninsured. RSupremes makg that the American way? Canucks think we're nuts! 


So single-payer healthcare not only would have been cheaper & more equitable, but it also would have been more legally resilient.

Read the above (just a small sampling of one night's discussion on Twitter). To sum it all up: people are uneasy about change. That's old news, but, is it just the element of change that poses a threat? No, people are concerned about putting their own health in jeopardy. For this reason, we have been teetering on the edge of health care reform. We want to take the plunge, but we are scared of the consequences.

The fight over health care reform is just like the Hunger Games. The government has nurtured a society that promotes the Games (universal health care) and encourages tributes to fight to the death (provokes citizens to a place where they feel trapped); without freedom of choice. Each tribute, just like each American citizen, wants the chance to choose life (or medical care), without having to take it from their friends and peers. Therein lies the problem: when the government takes away their choice, they feel forced to protect themselves and they become animals - caring only for their personal well-being. It's survival of the fittest. They no longer trust the men and women in power.

Americans are caught between a rock and a hard place. Altruism is a strong force within democracy and they want to provide medical care for everyone, but they do not trust #Obamacare. People are too afraid that, like the Hunger Games,  the system is rigged; that when they really do get very sick, they won't get the timely, high standard of care that they need and feel that they deserve. And it may be a matter of life or death. Acts of kindness and universal health care may risk the loss of their own quality care. Like so many things in life, it all boils down to self preservation, as the Tweets above show. People are suspicious. Just like in Panem, they do not trust the government to make these decisions; this can cause a great deal of unrest and unhappiness in the nation. 

In MA, we pay a high percentage of our annual salary to healthcare benefits, as the result of the Massachusetts Health Care Reform Law (2006), implemented by Mitt Romney during his time as governor. For many single workers, like myself, this translates to 1/3 of my monthly pay check - a high price to pay. I am rarely sick enough to need medical attention, so this number does feels unjust.

I understand the resentment towards #Obamacare. However, this is no excuse for neglecting those who need medical attention. So what do we do? What if Americans want both free choice and universal health care? Can we have our cake and eat it too, or is this one big Catch 22?

Time for a Change

It is a new year and a new era for me. This blog has tracked my progress in the field of Journalism from the very beginning of my tenure. However, the time has come to take this platform (a rather holdge-podge of articles and memoirs) and turn it into something more targeted and mission driven. That being said, I am not abandoning my work...you will still be able to search back through the archives and find my early writings.

Now...the transition. Moving forward, I would like to dedicate this space as a canvas for reflection and sharing insights into the world of social media management. The key to successful social media campaigning (especially for a nonprofit) is the ability to stay abreast of the latest discoveries, and to make your own and to share them. This collaborative environment stems from Mark Zuckerberg, himself, and the Facebook philosophy of open information interaction. Instead of keeping his product a secret, Zuckerberg has attempted to make Facebook available to anyone who has an interest in exploring the network. The Facebook backend, templates, and profile fields are open to everyday users and developers, alike, to develop ideas and expand upon their platform as much as they desire. This democratic approach sets a precedent that allows for positive feedback, and sharing of information that leaves the user feeling valued and empowered. I believe that this cultural change does not discount the need for careful monitoring of social media sites and a continued effort for brand name protection, but it broadens our horizons in a world where a narrow perspective on life, limits opportunity. Well done, Mark.

Grab a handful of Carrots instead of a handful of Chips- Yes, even the BBQ ones!

P. Pierce Fights Childhood Obesity from Catherine Moore on Vimeo.

Fall 2009, Celtics star Paul Pierce promotes his FitCLub 34 to get kicks movin' and a groovin' and healthy as can be. Paul Pierce strives to fight childhood obesity by showing kids how choosing to eat right, stay active, and participate in activities such as break dancing, yoga, step, double dutch jump rope, hip hop, and aerobics can make a difference in how you feel. (In collaboration with Harvard Pilgrim Health Care group)

What's Important about YOUR Health?

Howard Dean's health care reform plan isn't really one. He's just set on having a public option. What Howard Dean does think is necessary is giving the American people a comprehensive plan that is so simple, high school and college kids can understand it. Why make it complex? The world of legislation is already far too jargon-filled.Let's be real: we're talking about our health here. We need our rights stated in plain English. By Catherine Moore, camoore@bu.edu

Americans STILL Suffering from Polluted Drinking Water?

BOSTON, Mass. (9/17/1009) -- Americans are drinking polluted water…In recent years, violations of the Clean Water Act have risen across the United States, The New York Times reported on September 12, 2009. Family health is now compromised in areas of the country where clean water used to be the status quo. No, people are forced to “think before they drink.”

Jennifer Hall-Massey’s family lives outside of Charleston, West Virginia, where the bath water that she bathes her two young boys in is contaminated with lead, nickel, and other heavy metals that cause rashes, burns, and eats away at tooth enamel.

Although many of the chemical factories and manufacturing plants have admitted to causing the contamination, very few of these violators have been held accountable for their actions. In fact, most have completely escaped punishment.

The new EPA administrator, Lisa P. Jackson, told the NYT that the Clean Water Act of 1972 is no longer sufficient legislation and strengthening water protections is one of her top priorities.

Original NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/us/13water.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1253287007-WUIC0JgT4Kcd662pGzQs4g

By Catherine Moore, camoore@bu.edu

"Obama-Care"

BOSTON, MA (9/14/2009) -- Is health care a question of legality or morality? Are we, as American citizens, entitled to health care that allows us to live worry-free, knowing that we will never leave a hospital untreated due to the price of the medical treatment? I think almost every American would agree that this is the case. But Why?

Because health care is a necessity in life- it is one of the key components in ensuring the American dream of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Therefore, it is not simply a question of policy and legislation that Washington finds itself carving out of the oak tree of history, it is a moral standard that lawmakers are choosing to either adhere to or disregard.

When Obama presented his health care plan to the American people on September 9, 2009, he was might have thought he was delivering a marketing speech to a panel of the toughest critics in the world. He was, in a way. But his audience was not the elite businessmen who were sitting in their Brooks Brothers' suit coats standing and sitting in agreement as the president spoke before their very eyes. The REAL audience assessing Obama's plan was driving home from work on I-95, setting the table for dinner in Waltham, MA, and sifting through bills at their desks as they contemplated taking out a second mortgage on their homes, in order to pay their outstanding medical bills. These were the men and women that listened to Obama's words, careful to take every statement with a grain of salt.

Here, I am going to take a liberty that, as a journalist, I am told never to take. It may feel a bit naughty (in truth, it DOES, why else would I be apologizing?), but I am going to switch into first-person narrative. Because, in reality, I can speak for these people I have described- the real audience for Obama's health care argument- because I am an average American citizen and this topic concerns me. It is my health at stake.

As a college senior in my final year of undergraduate work, I often think about the future and the possibility that in one year, I may be paying my own medical bills. So when Obama spoke, I listened, sitting in my sweats on the couch in my boyfriend's college apartment.

President Barack Obama is one of the most ideological presidents that I have seen in my mere 21 years of existence. He always has his chin up, his eyes twinkling, and his head held high. I don't believe half of what he says, even though most of the time, I want to. I really do!

Obama's plan deals with three brackets of people: the insured, the uninsured, and the irresponsibly uninsured.

For the insured, Obama plans to make insurance better; there will be more stability for job insurance, people will have the freedom to choose the doctor they desire, routine/preventative check-ups will be covered, and you will not be denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition. Bravo! Obama also condemned insurance companies that force people to pay for prescriptions "out-of-pocket," saying "No One should go broke because they got sick."

For the uninsured, Obama is determined to provide insurance through an Insurance Exchange that allows insurance companies to compete for clients on a level playing field. Despite accusations from right-wing Republicans, Obama says that a new government insurance option will only be added to the pool of other insurers, one of many fish in the sea. The cheap, government option will be totally self-sufficient and non-profit, entirely independent of tax payer dollars. The exchange would not go into effect for four years, however, tax credits and a low cost plan would be offered in the meantime.

And for the irresponsible American citizen, Obama has a message, "No gaming the system!" The president spoke directly to the minority of Americans who can afford health care, but choose not to pay for it. These are the people who think they will never get sick and then, inevitably, end up being rushed to the emergency room and the rest of us end up paying their bills. These are the people that rack up health care costs and these are the people that are going to prevent reform plans from successfully coming to fruition. But no longer. From now on, Obama wants to make it mandatory to carry health care insurance- just as it is mandatory for every driver to carry some sort of auto-insurance. End of story.

First, let me tell you what I did like about his plan. He acknowledged, as the late Ted Kennedy said, that this is not a bi-partisan issue. The matter of health care is one of "large heartedness" and the moral character of our country. Obama also said that he will protect Medicare and the future of the elderly population, he will offer the American people a choice in affordable health coverage- a choice that does not have to be government funded, and he "will not accept the status quo as a solution."

Along with this optimistic attitude, Obama made several compromises. He is willing to use ideas from across the aisle- including elements of health care reform proposed by former President Bush and Obama's political opponent in the 2008 elections, Senator John McCain.

The problem is that the health care plan is going to cost a grand total of $900 billion over a ten year period. Where is all of this money coming from? Obama says that it is coming from within the health care system, from harvesting all of the expenditure that is wasted on executive bonuses and elsewhere. Obama says that by making the system more efficient and by holding people accountable, we can fund the new subsidized health care plans without "adding one dime to the deficit." Any additional costs will be paid for by the added money entering the system by way of the newly insured (formerly uninsured).

Ok, this is all fine and good, but I am not convinced. I want to see the numbers. I agree, (admitting to my own ignorance of the health care field) retrieved wasted money could provide the system with a significant figure, however, can it really fund all $900 billion? Break it down for me...where exactly is each sum coming from? Show me the numbers.

Obama showed some true backbone towards the end of his speech, however, after getting dubbed a "liar" by Rep. Wilson in reference to illegal immigrants' exclusion from the health care plan. Obama said that he will not waste time listening to people who want to try to kill his plan. He will only listen to those who are willing to work to improve it. The use of fear and antistatic values to hinder progress will not be tolerated. That being said, Obama would not let a few sour grapes ruin the monumental moment in US history.

Promising to "pull this economy back from the brink," Obama told Americans, "I am not the first president to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last."

See: Obama's Health Care Speech to Congress

By Catherine Moore, camoore@bu.edu

Baby Boomers are Busting Out

Washington, D.C. (6/9/2009) -- Aging is a peculiar phenomenon. The concept is applies to all humanity, however, most people spend little time thinking about it, until, they receive their AARP memberships cards in the mail.

            Donna Brazile, presidential campaign manager for Al Gore and a veteran Democratic political strategist, led a panel discussion at the National Press Club on Monday, focused on how to handle the near-future retirement crisis.

            Volunteers of America, the host of the discussion, predicted that the senior population in the United States double in the next couple decades. Noting that America is on the “cusp of one of the most dramatic demographic shifts in its history,” the organization used the event to highlight the startling fact that by the year 2030, there will be over 71.5 million people age 65 or older.

            The problem lies not in the influx of cookie-making grandmas or doting grandpas, but in the demands that this surge of seniors will place on our country’s current elderly care system.

            The panelists, ranging from former Senate Democratic Leader Tm Daschle to task is huge and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, differed are many aspects of healthcare delivery. However, they remained aligned in their belief that the country needs to prepare in advance and it needs to do so with urgency.

            Brazile led the discussion in a light-hearted manner, teasingly referring to Volunteers of America President Charles W. Gould as “Chuck,” introducing famed conservative Newt Gingrich as “the man to my left,” and commenting that there were two women holding up the ends of the panel (herself and famed anthropologist, Mary Catherine Bateson).

            However, despite the enjoyment the audience experienced listening to the five famous politicians crack “age” jokes, the 200 middle-aged viewers were not amused by the topic as a whole.  There was an element of severity to the conversation, which could not be removed through any amount of cajoling.

            According to statistics provided by Volunteers of America, nearly 25 percent of U.S. households currently play a role in providing care to elderly people. A woman, on average, spends about 18 years caring for a parent—the same amount of time that she spends raising a child.

            In our society today, people are living later in life and, therefore, they need healthcare longer than ever before. The problem is that the money just isn’t always there. Many elderly people do not have enough money to live a long-term, sustainable lifestyle and they have no choice but to rely on government funding. Unfortunately, this funding through Medicaid and Medicare has been mismanaged and the system is not functioning in the way that it should. By 2017, only eight years from now, the Medicare trust fund is expected to be insolvent.

            So what do we do to ensure that seniors live successfully throughout their aging period? Volunteers of America's president, Charles Gould, said that it is necessary to face realities and give seniors the independence that they need and demand. Mary Catherine Bateson disagreed.

            “I can’t think of any time in my life that I have been independent,” said Bateson. “The human condition is inter-dependent. What this country needs is the engagement of all of its citizens.”

            Bateson said that although it’s often difficult for the elderly to accept help, it is important that they realize that they need it. It is also important for the younger generations to offer their services to their elders, because this relationship will help the younger citizens become better leaders of the country.

            Newt Gingrich chimed in that this is all a part of the balance that people need to find as they age. Uncharacteristically moderate, Gingrich was passive on the argument for independence. He said that although elderly people might not have as much energy as they used to (so they might need more help completing everyday tasks), they don’t make as many mistakes as they once did. Laughing, Gingrich said that he qualifies in this category at the age of 65. (Some might argue, however, on the part questioning whether he still makes big mistakes).

            Tom Daschle was the cynic of the group, stating that he is only 50 percent confident that sufficient legislation will be passed in preparation for the baby boomers’ seniority. He said that he wished he was more optimistic, but he has a hard time believing that such a huge task will be completed by the time funds start running out.

            At the moment, Congress is considering Senate Bill 118, which promote the construction of new senior housing facilities. Introduced by Democratic Senator Herb Kohl, the bill would also preserve and improve existing senior housing structures and allow for the conversion of some facilities into assisted living residences. This is just one example of legislation that could be set in place now that could help prepare the country in the future senior crisis.

            Instead, Daschle agreed with panel members that healthcare is both a moral obligation and a privilege. Yet, he also stressed two elements that he believes people need to entertain in their minds while thinking about mental healthcare debate.

            First, Daschle said people need to take responsibility for their own personal health and second, they need to contribute to the greater healthcare system, because this is also a human responsibility.

            Both Gingrich and Bateson mentioned a window of opportunity that they saw in forging stronger inter-generational relationships. Bateson called this “life-long learning,” which is the key to keeping dialogue open between young and old people.  With a greater number of parents caring for grandparents, grandparents raising children, and children caring for the elderly, our culture is morphing into one of “mutual giving.”

            Gingrich called this trend towards “mutual giving” as America’s notion of extended relations—one that is moving away from the modern era of individualism and returning to a post-modern technologically connected society. Gingrich titled this as ability for people to remain “electronically intimate, despite geographic separation.”

            Gingrich concluded that he thinks if President Obama is willing to accept “half a loaf,” then there could be healthcare reform for seniors within the 2009-2010 year. But, the president must be willing to compromise; unlike back in 1993-1994 when the issue of healthcare remained unresolved between parties so subsequently, reform was never accomplished.

            As Daschle stated, “If we can only find common ground…(a slogan all too familiar to the Obama era)” then we could find a way in ensure healthcare for all, including seniors. 

By Catherine Moore, camoore@bu.edu

Kill Pill?

Washington, D.C. (6/8/2009) -- Birth control pills are not getting safer—they are merely getting less dangerous. Aggressively promoted and advertised, birth control and preventative contraceptives have blossomed into a rapidly developing industry that is having a major influence on the American public.

            According to the American Life League (ALL), over 80 percent of women in the United States have been on the pill at some point in their lives. The ALL, along with a minority of medical professionals in the field of Napro-technology (natural gynecology) believe that the pill is slowly killing them.

            This horror movie-like saga was the scenario portrayed by Dr. Lynn Kerr, one of the panelists who spoke about the damaging effects of birth control pills on women’s health at a press conference held on Thursday at the National Press Club.

             Dr. Kerr, an Associate Clinical Professor at UCSF/Fresno Internal Medicine Residency Program said that she strives to teach her students an alternative viewpoint to the status quo, which tells doctors that birth control pills are the safe and easy, “quick-fix” to an array of medical issues. 

            When females go to the doctor to be treated for issues such as disabling periods (dysmenorrhea), lack of menstruation, secondary amenorrhea, loss of periods, and ovarian cysts, doctors are often quick to write a prescription for one of the many up-and-coming birth control pills and then send patients on their way. Because the prescription does help relieve condition symptoms, patients believe that they are “cured” from their ailment, as long as they remain on the drug.

            “The birth control pill is not truly a treatment for those problems,” said Dr. Paul Carpentier, first vice president of the American Academy of Fertility Care Professionals. “It (the pill) floods the body with such artificial hormones that the body can no longer function in normal ways.”

            Dr. Carpentier practices family medicine at the Heywood Hospital in Gardner, Massachusetts, where he says that he refuses to prescribe the pill to females. Instead, Dr. Carpentier chooses to find alternative treatments for his patients. These treatments, unconventional in the modern era, include simple lifestyle adjustments such as diet changes, therapeutic healing, and charting menstruation cycles. This last option is a strategy that synchs the female menstruation cycle with specific pain medications, in order to pinpoint treatment at the climax of discomfort.

            Dr. Carpentier claimed that birth control pills shut off normal processes, which in a way, is like putting a Band Aid over a festering wound. It doesn’t fix the problem; it just masks the issue and allows it to get worse.

            Jim Sedlak, vice president of the American Life League acted as the mediator during the panel, inserting brief remarks that easily gave away his bias. He was adamant that young teenage girls have access to birth control through clinics such as Planned Parenthood.

            Sedlak said that this access is dangerous not only because it sends the message to 13, 14, and 15 year-old teens that it’s ok to be sexually active, but also for medical reasons. He said that young girls are not always aware of their medical history and, therefore, they might not know of a family history that could be counter-indicative to birth control pills and cause fatal consequences.

            With healthcare recently taking center stage in politics, there is a push for government funding of family planning programs. Whether this funding includes alternative programs (such as Napro-technology) is still up for debate. Sedlak, however, thinks that there is no reason that federal funding shouldn’t provide patients with all of the alternative treatments.

            Educating women on natural family planning is cost-efficient in an economy that is forcing Americans to save money whenever and wherever they can. According to Sedlak, the amount of money it cots for one woman to take birth control for six months could be used, instead, to pay a teacher to educate a whole group of female medical students about natural family planning options for the duration of a college semester. 

             Title 10 already provides 300 million dollars to support health care, but the Obama Administration wants to increase this number to 700 million. Planned Parenthood alone is asking the Obama Administration for a total of 4.6 billion dollars to further its own incentives. The ALL hopes that this money won’t be funneled straight into Planned Parenthood, but will be used more wisely: supporting programs that are more cost efficient and that “really work.”  That’s what it’s all about. 

By Catherine Moore, camoore@bu.edu

Bringing us Back to the Basics: Health Really Matters

            The new word around town is that, with the present economic slump in the United States, if you don’t feel any anxiety, then you don’t have a pulse.

            “Frankly, recently with the recession, we joke that if you don’t feel stressed, then you are not alive,” said Helen Darling, the director of the National Business Group on Health (NBGH) in Washington D.C.

            Wednesday, the NBGH released data from its most recent study, surveying the health of its members who work at companies of 2,000 or more employees. Darling shared what, in her eyes, is good news: people are more focused now than ever before on living healthy lifestyles.

             The press conference discussion, held at the National Press Club, was heavy with data (each attendee received a large printed survey packet highlighting the research figures), but may not be as conclusive as it seemed.

            The survey, titled “The Recession’s Toll on Employee’s Health,” profiled a group of 1,500 employees, covering a variety of personal health topics including exercise, diet, clinical and emergency medical care, insurance, prescription drugs, and psychological health. What the NBGH wanted to know was: how could companies help people in their desire to form healthier life habits?

            “Healthcare is more of a priority than a year ago,” Darling said. “And we are very happy to see that, I might add. It’s really saving and living a healthier lifestyle that makes people’s priority list.”

            When the NBGH surveyed its sample group, the survey showed that there was a 34 percent increase in exercise among the employees within the past year. Since 2008, there was also a 46 percent increase in healthy eating habits.

            Darling noted that this increased focus on health is filling a void within the American population. The United States Department of Labor states that the unemployment rate is now at 15.8 percent, as of May 2009. The statistics continue to look bleak.

            “It’s one thing to lose a job in a bubble economy, it’s another to lose a job in this economy,” said Darling.

            Yet, on the upside of things, without a job, many people found that they have more time to focus on healthy behaviors such as exercising and making healthy eating choices.

            “You want to take care of yourself now so that stay healthy in the future,” Darling said. She reasoned that people are willing to take care of themselves because they realize that focusing on health now, could keep the doctor bills to a minimum down the road. And that’s always good when you have very little cash.

             “Exercise is a silver bullet,” said Darling multiple times. “I know I sound like I’m a wild woman on the subject, but it really is. You can just walk around the block at no charge.”

            However, the validity of Darling’s happy “Pollyanna diagnosis” of the increased health of the American people could be short lived. Dr. Patricia Rieker, an associate professor of psychiatry and sociology at Harvard Medical School, specializes in public health. She said that the NBGH survey shows accurate trends in health; however, they aren’t really portraying the whole picture. There is data missing.

            “Everyone values their health,” said Rieker. “The problem is (as I argued

In my book, Gender and Health: The Effects of Constrained Choices and Social Policies) that they lack the opportunities and options to pursue health.”

            The NBGH addressed this problem, by saying that it is the employer’s responsibility to ensure that the opportunities are available to people and to encourage them to take advantage of health programs through special incentives and benefits.

            “In difficult times, all benefits take on more value,” said Darling. She argued that people would utilize free or low-cost programs such as company gym memberships, nurse hotlines, generic and mail order medications, and free employee psychology sessions. Darling stated that instead of foregoing care in the present recession, people needed to manage their care. And employers should help them with that.

            But are employee benefits the only factor affecting people’s ability to get healthier? Rieker argued, “The question then becomes--which people?  That's why income, race and class are important to know.  Those with the greater resources and options always take advantage of trends and encouragement to make healthier choices.”

            The NBGH said that it did not pay attention to factors such as race, gender, annual income, or prior health issues because none of these things had a significant impact on the data.

            “We had very little difference in responses from people due to ethnicity or geography. The disparities are fairly insignificant when you work at large employers. It’s fairly homogeneous,” said NBGH survey conductor, Karen O. Marlo, the director of benchmarking and analysis at Institute on Health Care Costs and Solutions.

            There may be little variance amongst the sample group that the NBGH surveyed in their study, however, it is important not to forget that they are surveying people who have retained their jobs throughout the economic slump—which is a lot to say, nowadays. Therefore, their profile sample is not accurate of a random sample of the U.S. population. Factors such as family size, savings, family support, education, geographical location, and ethnicity can play a key role in determining how a person views health and its priority in their lives.

            This means that we should not brush aside the notion that factors such as race influence a healthy lifestyle, merely because the NBGH report says so.

            But Rieker doesn’t argue that employers could do more for their workers. She said, “Of course there are many ways that employers can contribute to health with a variety of policies from work load, participatory decision making, cafeteria choices, anti smoking campaigns, on-site day care, ‘green buildings,’ easy access to exercise facilities and family friendly policies.”

            Darling credits her organization’s push for greater employer participation in health status as part of human nature.

            “It’s getting back to Basics,” said Darling, “Paying attention to what matters.”

By Catherine Moore, camoore@bu.edu