The advertising game is changing at a breakneck pace. Thankfully, we’re here to help you keep up. With increasingly sophisticated tools to target a particular market subset, multiple ad delivery channels and analytics to track campaign efficacy, advertisers are getting more and more efficient in the ways they push out their message.

… Or are they? While total advertising spend worldwide is still dominated by TV, print and online ads, a recent study by The Nielsen Company shows these ad channels to be significantly less trustworthy than so-called  ”word-of-mouth” sources. According to the study,  ”ninety-two percent of consumers around the world say they trust earned media, such as word-of-mouth and recommendations from friends and family, above all other forms of advertising,” (Nielsen, 2012). That’s an increase of 18 percent over 2007 figures.

Likewise, “online consumer reviews are the second most trusted form of advertising with 70 percent of global consumers surveyed online indicating they trust this platform,” corresponding to a 15 percent increase over a four year period. This type of source has an emerging name — they are called “virtual strangers” — and they are the third most trustworthy source behind family and friends.

When it comes to television, magazine and newspaper ads, not only do a mere 47 percent of consumers view them as a trustworthy source, but consumer confidence also declined 24 percent, 20 percent and 25 percent respectively since 2009. Despite the sharp decline in trust, overall ad spend for television advertising still increased by nearly 10 percent in the US.

Online ads are not experiencing any shelter from the desensitization of the consumer base from advertising either. Online and mobile ads overall earn trust from approximately 25-35 percent of consumers, depending on the delivery medium. Although these numbers are still relatively low, trust in online and mobile ads experienced an encouraging uptick in trust from 2007, with mobile ads accountable for the highest increase — 21 percent since 2009 and 61 percent since 2007.

In the words of the great Bob Dylan, “the times they are a-changin.” Conventional push advertising is becoming white noise to consumers, while digital word-of-mouth from virtual strangers is shaping buying decisions. Look at your marketing budget — does your spend allocation set you up to win in 2012? How about 2013?

Of course, patient opinions are not for sale. And even if they were, the medical and dental industries would be prohibited from investing in them. But by empowering your patients to share their voices online, you can effectively leverage the opinions of your most trustworthy advocate. Gone are the days of full-page Yellow Pages ads and local magazine blocks. The social Internet is no longer just a trend. The world is becoming increasingly social, and advertising is no exception. It is now a necessary component of modern business.

Be forewarned: if you don’t take advantage of social and crowd-sourced marketing, you can be sure that your competition will.

Resources: Nielsen: Global Consumers’ Trust in ‘Earned’ Advertising Grows in Importance

Most doctors carry professional liability policies of $1 / $3 million limits. Dr. Kurt Haupt would certainly benefit from a $75 million policy.

He delivered a baby in April, 2009. The baby developed cerebral palsy. The plaintiff’s attorney argued “baby’s heart rate was fluctuating wildly and the doctor didn’t hasten the birth or conduct a proper examination of cord blood.”

Defense counsel countered a blockage of mucus in the baby’s airway, not the heart rate, caused the loss of oxygen to the patient’s brain that led her to develop cerebral palsy.

The hospital settled the case in advance of the trial. So, the verdict – a whopping large one – falls on the doctor’s lap.

Lawyer for the plaintiff wrote on a newspaper comment blog: “The hospital policy called for testing of the cord blood. The policy was not followed. The patient’s cord blood was thrown away….” The plaintiff’s lawyer also wrote the carrier refused to settle even when Dr. Haupt asked for settlement. The lawyer suggested the $74M will be paid for by the carrier because of their refusal to settle.

This is a sad case. Here’s what one labor and delivery nurse wrote in the paper – just below the plaintiff attorney’s post:

I have been a L/D nurse for six years now, and have participated in many, many deliveries with Dr. Haupt, in addition to close to a thousand more with the other local OBs. I know more about whom I would want in an emergency than the average person, and I chose Dr. Haupt as my obstetrician. I feel so fortunate I have had him to learn from all these years.

Hard to say whether this case will affect baby deliveries in San Luis Obispo where Dr. Haupt practices. I doubt the effect will be positive.

by Michael J. Sacopulos

“I’m on jury duty. God help me.” For those of us who have been on jury duty, this thought has probably passed through our head. Perhaps some of us have even muttered it beneath our breath when we received the notice to report into jury duty. But most people know enough not to tweet or write a Facebook post about serving or a jury. Now, enter a Kentucky juror who did exactly that. Her friend then responded “They’re guilty…whatever it is, they’re guilty”.

Earlier this year, this Kentucky juror was sitting on a medical malpractice case. The case involved a newborn child that had suffered a catastrophic and irreversible brain injury due to the umbilical cord being wrapped around his neck. The child lived for 39 days before life support was removed. He died. According to the Kentucky Trial Court Review a $1,183,638 verdict was returned. Thereafter, the hospital sought a new trial/mistrial based on a Facebook posting by a juror.

Continue Reading »

Sam Bernard showed up at the office of Dr. Edward Goldberg, a gastroenterologist, for a colonoscopy. The anesthesiologist, Dr. Goldweber, gave the patient propofol for sedation. Because the colon prep was inadequate, the case was aborted, and the patient went home.
Five months later, the patient tested positive for hepatitis B. Three months after that, the New York Health Department determined the cause: reinserting a contaminated needle into multi-dose vial of anesthesia. The anesthesiologist was charged with gross negligence and his license was revoked.

The patient’s family pursued a lawsuit against the anesthesiologist. Since he had declared bankruptcy, the gastroenterologist was added to the lawsuit. The anesthesiologist was neither an employee nor independent contractor of the gastroenterologist. In spite of that, the judge ruled the anesthesiologist was working in the gastroenterologist’s office under his implicit approval. Accordingly, the judge refused to dismiss the gastroenterologist invoking the legal theory of vicarious liability.

How this case is ultimately resolved is anyone’s guess.

This week newspapers reported assorted medical specialty societies are recommending doctors perform fewer tests and procedures. They also urged patients to question the value of these services, if offered.

Some of the over-ordered tests:

1. Routine EKG at routine physical
2. MRI for recent back pain
3. Imaging studies for patient suffering from simple headaches
4. Antibiotics for sinusitis.

 
Two points:

“These all sound reasonable, but don’t forget that every person you’re looking after is unique,” said Dr. Eric Topol, chief academic officer of Scripps Health, a health system based in San Diego, adding that he worried that the group’s advice would make tailoring care to individual patients harder. “This kind of one-size-fits-all approach can be a real detriment to good care.”

Continue Reading »

Jeff Segal, MD, JD, FACS

Utah’s highest court ruled that family members can sue a doctor if something goes wrong with their loved one’s care. Doctors, of course, owe a duty of care to their patients. But, if their care affects non-patients…well, that is mostly new territory.

Dr. Hugo Rodier, a primary care doctor, prescribed antidepressants (and other medications with potential psychiatric effects – such as steroids) to his patient, David Ragsdale.

Ragsdale’s wife, Kristy had requested a restraining order against him. Unfortunately, the restraining order was not effective – Ragsdale gunned down his wife. Ragsdale pled guilty to first degree felony murder and is serving a 20 years to life prison term. He supposedly took full responsibility for his actions. One caveat. He said he would not have murdered his wife had he not been on the medications.

Ragsdale’s children (via a conservator) filed a medical malpractice lawsuit. A lower court dismissed the suit noting the plaintiffs were not the doctor’s patients.

Utah’s Supreme Court overruled. Continue Reading »