However, its latest initiative is likely to draw far more supporters than detractors. Working in partnership with the National Social Marketing Centre (NSMC) and the Department of Health, NICE this week launched a website with tools designed to help UK doctors and healthcare commissioners evaluate the value for money offered by social marketing projects that are intended to help people make healthier lifestyle choices. In addition to providing information regarding direct costs to healthcare providers, the tools provide insight into the wider financial and societal costs associated with our lifestyle choices.

For example, designers of smoking cessation programs are able to find out how much money an individual who stops smoking might save through giving up smoking, the cost to the local fire service, savings on street cleaning through reduced cigarette littering and the extent of gains to employers from reduced employee absences.

The first tool, which focuses on smoking cessation, is now online and available to download (http://thensmc.com/resources/vfm/smoking-tool). Additional tools focusing on breastfeeding, alcohol abuse, obesity and bowel cancer are due to be published soon.

So will this significant vote of confidence in the role social marketing can play in addressing public health issues, change the way in which some currently view NICE? As the organisation’s scope continues to grow and its role diversify, will NICE ultimately win the argument that it is an enabler to access rather than a barrier? Time will tell.

According to a March 2 New York Times Prescriptions blog piece, “the creators of the site said they hoped to dispel confusion over the law’s details by allowing people to access information tailored to them and, eventually, by adding a chat feature where users can ask specific questions and get immediate feedback from experts. The site was also designed to provide details to doctors and other health care providers who take questions about the law from patients.”

Six other groups, in addition to the family physicians’ academy and AARP, make up the coalition that created the site. Among them are the American Medical Association; the American Nurses Association; the Catholic Health Association; the National Community Pharmacists Association; the American College of Physicians; and the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Action Network.

Thought partnership is pretty simple— it’s the process of convening others to help answer big questions.   Being a thought leader still sounds good, but the days when a single company can frame and shape collective action are long past. Especially in healthcare, a thought partner knows that the big problems can’t be solved in isolation, and assembles like-minded parties to tackle problems together.   There are three fundamental differences between thought leadership and thought partnership.

Thought leadership begins with a stake in the ground. Thought partnership begins with a question.

The challenges facing the healthcare sector — from preserving innovation to care delivery to affordable access – are too thorny for any single solution or any one entity to solve.  Corporations who are true though partners start by examining how their commercial interests align with bigger societal issues, and then find common ground with stakeholders to achieve mutual ends.  The questions start and don’t stop: what is the biggest challenge to solving this issue?  How should we tackle it together?   Can we agree on this goal?  What are your thoughts on achieving success?

Thought leadership is a statement. Thought partnership is dialogue.

Thought partners bring people together to tackle hard issues.  They convene groups, debate actions, and align stakeholders around solutions that can be advocated collectively.   Thought leaders have agendas; Thought partners build agendas collaboratively with other stakeholders.

Thought partners don’t confuse “sponsorship” with “partnership.”   Financial commitment is important, but thought partners also roll up their sleeves.   Thought partnership is as much about joining conversations, sharing information and spending time in the trenches with allies as it is about opening the checkbook.

Though leadership has a single winner. Thought partnership has lots of winners.

Thought leadership is successful if an individual or company’s reputation is strengthened around a certain issue.  Thought partners measure success not only by how much they win, but by how many of their partners win, too.  A Thought partner’s success is achieved when a greater good is served.  By putting the message above the messenger, Thought partners build loyalty, trust, and preference—the ultimate goal of reputation.

The best definition of thought leadership I ever heard was from Peter Verrengia, President of CCW:  “First, have a thought.  Then, be prepared to lead.”  The problem is, there is no guarantee you’ll be followed.  In healthcare, thought partnership is a better option for achieving positive external exposure, enhanced corporate reputation and helpful alliances that support mutual success.

This article originally appeared in PR Week.

TogoRun first met CCI in the spring of 2009 as we were about to celebrate our first anniversary as an agency.  We saw our own values – Knowledge, Fidelity, and Endurance – reflected in the qualities that CCI service dogs provide their human companions and we have supported CCI pro bono ever since.

On Thursday, December 9^th at the Forbes Galleries in New York City, CCI launched the Margaret O’Brien Children’s Initiative.  This program is a partnership between CCI and Margaret O’Brien, Academy Award winner and film legend, to raise funds to benefit physically challenged children in need of a CCI assistance dog.  The money raised through the Margaret O’Brien Children’s Initiative will help provide service dogs to the 39 children currently on the waiting list in the Northeast region.

These exceptional dogs, which cost $50,000 from training to placement, become a child’s confidant and trusted companion.  These dogs are able to perform tasks such as retrieving fallen objects, turning light switches on/off and opening doors.

At the event, Hollywood icons Randal Malone, Shirley Knight and Celeste Holm were in attendance to support CCI and Ms. O’Brien.

Also, a very special guest was present, 14-year old Johanna, who has undergone 76 surgeries for a congenital brain condition, brought her canine companion, Taffy.  Johanna relies on Taffy for daily assistance and sees her as a best friend.

The TogoRun team included Neil Hochman, Anne Lucke and Alana Rockland, who pitched in with media support and garnered placements in the New York Daily News and People Magazine’s People Pets website. Both features raised awareness about this amazing organization and its current needs.

Click here for the New York Daily News story.

Click here for the People Pets story.

To make a donation to Canine Companions for Independence or get more information, visit www.cci.org.

The trends and numbers are quite startling. Worldwide, a rapidly growing population that includes rising segments of the elderly and chronically ill are taxing healthcare structures. The World Health Organization (WHO) predicts that 50 percent of the developed world will be chronically ill by 2050. Furthermore, the global population of children aged five and under is expected to fall to approximately 49 million by 2050, while the number of people over 60 will balloon to around 1.2 billion.

At the same time that these global trends are taking hold, the WHO estimates that 57 countries have an absolute shortage of 2.3 million physicians, nurses and midwives – too few to address the full needs of a worldwide healthcare system strained under such a dramatic increase in older patients.

Relying solely on hospitals to provide effective long-term care for the burgeoning elderly patient population is unsustainable. If current trends continue, developed countries will be spending over 20 percent of their GDP on healthcare in the not-too-distant future.

Simply put, governments will be challenged to maintain this pace of spending to support healthcare while also earmarking money toward other social programs their constituents demand.

What’s needed are ways to help patients get the care they need outside the walls of the hospital, including:

1. Technologies that make it easier for hospitals and clinicians to share information about  patients, illnesses and therapies;
2. Improvements to  the speed, quality and range of services available through outpatient clinics;
3. Home healthcare solutions and technologies that empower patients to monitor and engage in the management of their own health.

Effective home healthcare means fewer and shorter inpatient stays and frees up valuable resources in hospitals. More importantly, patients who can stay at home tend to be happier and have a better quality of life.

Yet, to realize true success and high patient compliance/utilization rates, home healthcare solutions must be easy-to-use, easy-to-access and, perhaps most importantly, designed with real consumer needs in mind.

Additional social programs, patient education campaigns and new healthcare administration practices that incentivize, and are inclusive of, care outside the hospital walls are also needed in combination with these innovative solutions to truly begin to remedy the looming problems.

However, these home healthcare technologies and information-sharing measures, such as systems that allow for off-site readings and secure sharing to physicians of patients’ vitals and their chronic illness status, represent strong near-term ways to help alleviate the critical issues facing healthcare providers. The promise of home healthcare will increase the number of patients doctors can treat and reduce the number of people that have to be admitted to the hospital – taking some of the pressure off hospitals.

But the President put it even better, agreeing with the Times, but adding, “We were in such a hurry to get things done, we didn’t change how we got things done.  And I think that frustrated people.”

Being in a hurry defines where we are as a nation, whether, in the workplace—feeling pressure to answer emails before we receive them—or, in the White House, feeling pressure to create an FDR-style, first 100 days legacy—including healthcare reform.

The hurry mindset obviously extends to Sweden, where the Nobel Committee nominated the President for a Nobel Peace Prize based on his first 11 days in office—but I digress!

Back to healthcare. It’s not just Democrats who are in a hurry; Republicans are, too.  On Election Day, before the results were in, John Boehner, the presumptive Speaker of the House, called healthcare reform a “monstrosity,” adding, “It will kill jobs in America, ruin the best healthcare system in the world, and bankrupt our country. That means that we have to do everything we can to try to repeal this bill.”

Well, as with most issues, reforming healthcare—or, at this point, fixing healthcare reform—lies somewhere in between positions staked out by Democrats and Republicans. The good news is President Obama has indicated his willingness to consider “modifications” to healthcare law. And while there will be a Republican-led, House vote to repeal “Obamacare” that will pass, the repeal will not pass the Senate.  And, if it does, Republicans cannot override a Presidential veto.

So where are we now? According to a Harvard School of Public Health analysis of 17 independent polls, Americans believe healthcare was an important, but secondary, voting issue in the mid-term elections—behind the economy and jobs. In addition, a majority (56 percent) questioned the federal government’s ability to solve healthcare problems, while 41 percent believed Congress should repeal most of the major provisions of the bill and replace them with a completely different set of proposals. (A majority of healthcare professionals with whom I have spoken would agree with that 41 percent.)

And where are we going? As a former Republican (now an independent) who voted for Obama, I can see both sides AND, a silver lining to the mid-term election results. I believe that, when the dust settles, Americans will demand that Democrats and Republicans in Congress sit down together to assess what was passed, and, since many of its provisions do not take effect for years, regard it as a first draft and make it  better. In essence, don’t rush healthcare reform—we’ll wait for something really good.

Being deliberative is not in vogue today, but, from an outcomes perspective, it beats being in a hurry every time.

Kathy Hyett and Eddie Bernays

Most public relations students today continue to study Bernays and his nearly century-long influence on the profession. The nephew of Sigmund Freud, Bernays was a strong believer in the application of psychology and social sciences to what he called “the engineering of consent.”

Over the course of a career that spanned some eight decades, Bernays crafted dozens of great campaigns, using his finely honed beliefs in the power of persuasion to crystallize public opinion. In fact, in his seminal book, Crystallizing Public Opinion, published in 1923, he advocated that public relations has three basic elements: informing people, persuading people, and integrating people with people. Bernays implemented dozens of public relations campaigns using these principles.

For one, he persuaded people that bacon was good for you. This was, of course, before we knew too much about the artery-clogging damage of saturated fats. To do this, Bernays conducted a survey (sound familiar?) of some 5,000 physicians and reported that they recommended a hearty breakfast, which, of course, included bacon.

Bernays was also a big believer in the power of promotion – the proverbial publicity stunt. One of his most famous was his work for the American Tobacco Company. In the 1930s, he sent a group of young models to march in a New York parade, carrying “freedom torches” – or cigarettes. However, once the dangers of smoking became apparent, he later worked for the anti-tobacco cause.

As for integrating people with people, Bernays helped the Aluminum Company of America (AlCOA) align with special interest groups in order to convince the American public that water fluoridation was safe and beneficial to human health.

And fascinating as it may be to our younger colleagues, he did all this without digital or online communications tools. But, had he had the technology, I am sure he would have embraced digital communications. Because he also believed that the means and methods of informing, persuading and integrating would change with society.

November 22 is Edward Bernays’ birthday (he died in 1995 at the age of 104) and I, for one, want to take the opportunity to pay a small tribute to the man whose work set the stage for the evolution of the professional practice of public relations. So happy birthday, Eddie.

By the way, another feature of that memorable weekend was accompanying Betty Friedan – a friend of Bernays’ – to brunch. But that is a whole other story about the power of persuasion.

Unless you’ve been living under a rock since Labor Day, you can’t have missed that October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Because I’m a woman I understand the importance of the pink season. But because I’m also a ten-year breast cancer survivor, I feel brave enough to say that the passionately pink marketing tie-ins have lost some of their luster for me. Breast cancer seems like the “safe” choice for companies that market products to women. “BCAM” – as it’s come to be known by marketers – is as firmly fixed in the marketing-to-women promotional pantheon as Christmas and Mother’s Day. In certain New York City shopping districts entire buildings appear to have been hosed down with Pepto-Bismol, so great is the “pinking for the cure” effect.

Just once in October I would like to buy plain white paper towels, without a border of pink ribbons. I don’t want the pressure of mobilizing my friends and acquaintances to walk, run, or raise money. I would like to walk through Bloomingdale’s this month without having to dodge pinked-out makeup artists pushing Cosmetics for the Cure.

That’s why it was such a relief to stumble across a breast cancer awareness month product that doesn’t seem to trade on the hope hoopla but tells it like it is – honestly, and with a wink.

“Thinking of you,” begins the elegant cursive script on the greeting card.

“As you bitch-slap cancer.”

What??!! Rewind. Read that again?

“Bitch-slap cancer.” I roll the words around in my mouth like full-bodied cabernet. Yes, that is EXACTLY the attitude you’d need for the biggest fight of your life. The design is perfect too – a gorgeous, muscular mermaid’s tail coiled to unleash an epic smack-down no disease could withstand. This is a dream card – beautiful, authentic, fierce and funny. It says, “Give as good as you get. And win.”

How many of us send greeting cards when we hear that a friend or relative has been diagnosed with cancer? Probably not many, based on what’s available online. The affirmations, the angels, the rainbows – they seem inadequate for someone facing the fight of their lives. Magical thinking is not helpful to those who stand and fight, day after day, treatment after treatment.

Eventually, someone you know – a family member, a friend, a co-worker –will be diagnosed with cancer. You won’t know what to say. You may leave them an awkward voicemail message, or send an email. You may feel uncomfortable and avoid them.

Let me tell you something. Cancer patients are tough. They have to be. Raising money is essential but at the moment of diagnosis, pink ribbons don’t help. Guts and attitude are everything. It’s a lonely journey – but you can let your friends know that they are not alone. Buy a card – buy several – and keep them in your drawer for just such an occasion. Fifty percent of the proceeds of each sale go to The Young Survivors Coalition (www.youngsurvival.org), which should assuage the guilt of those of us who haven’t walked, raced or shopped for the cure this year.

Help a friend bitch-slap cancer.

To see more great greeting cards visit www.foxyblunt.com.

Intriguingly, an article in Newsweek pointed out that while the incidence of prostate cancer has risen from 9% to 16% since PSA testing became widely available in the 90’s, the risk of dying of prostate cancer has remained stable at 3% over the past 30 years. This may be because PSA testing has low specificity which leads to a high rate of false positives. Most prostate cancers do not produce symptoms for many years; autopsies have shown that 70% of men who die in their 60s have prostate cancer—and most never knew it.

One in 10 men will develop prostate cancer, and most prostate cancer deaths are due to advanced disease. According to a recent paper published by the Medical College of Georgia on advanced prostate cancer, about 10-20% of the cancers diagnosed are in an advanced stage. Maybe it’s not treatments for advanced cancers that need to be studied, but rather how the disease is diagnosed, so it can be treated earlier, when it’s more manageable.

Another recent study conducted by Cancer Research UK Cambridge Research Institute, found that the new biomarker, MSMB, is found at significantly lower levels in the urine of men diagnosed with prostate cancer than those without the disease. Kate Holmes of the UK’s Prostate Cancer Charity, said in a statement reprinted in a Reuters article, “Given the known limitations of the PSA blood test, finding a technique to accurately diagnose prostate cancer is the Holy Grail of research into the disease.”

J&J’s drug offers immediate hope, but low-cost, specific tests such as MSMB will help detect aggressive prostate cancers earlier and more accurately to narrow the funnel of patients who need treatment. By extension, the test may help doctors match patients to therapy regimes and select those who can benefit from new technology capable of imaging the prostate to monitor treatment efficacy. It would appear that the Grail is a combination of breakthroughs that simultaneously decreases false positives, catches advanced prostate cancer earlier and matches patients with the right therapies that will extend their lives.  With that said, every development and study brings more hope.