We Need a Doctor Stat!

SITUATION

A non-profit hospital located in a small town was being sued for alleged antitrust violations after it failed to grant work privileges to an orthopedic surgeon employed by an independent physicians group (IPG).

The hospital's reasons for denying privileges were complicated and difficult to explain in short 15 second sound-bites.  Conversely, the IPG's messages were easy to understand and they aggressively used the media to cast themselves as underdogs in the dispute.

The hospital was the largest employer in the town and the only full service (emergency room, obstetrics, etc.) medical care facility in a 130 mile radius.  The hospital feared that the negative bias of the media would damage its reputation and cause people in its service market to doubt the level of care it could provide.  Ultimately, given the doubts stirred by the bad press it received before calling in counsel, the hospital worried that sick people would not seek medical attention when they needed it.

OUR SOLUTION

• Created a two-tiered strategy, which sought to turn the "negative facts" the plaintiff had espoused into message assets for the hospital.  The subsequent plan focused on communicating the hospital's credibility and mission to members of the community (many of which were also employees) and educating the reporter from the local newspaper that was extensively covering the story.

• A full-scale investigation was conducted into the nature of plaintiff's allegations and the hospital's reasoning behind its actions.

• Messages were created that a) shifted the plaintiff's arguments to the hospital's advantage; and b) stressed the hospital's mission and importance to the community and region.

• The hospital petitioned the publisher of the newspaper (who happened to sit on the hospital's board) to take a more active interest in the story and oversee the reporter who, it was determined, was too young to fully understand the complexities of the issue and was unfairly using the hospital as a target on which to build a muckraking reputation.  The goal was not to get the publisher to cease coverage of the story but to insure that it was covered fairly.

• Multiple background meetings with the reporter and publisher were arranged so the hospital could explain its actions and provide context to the plaintiff's allegations (including documentation, whitepaper studies, etc.).  These meetings stressed the complexity of the issue and the need to look beyond soundbites in order to understand the story.

• Doctors and academics from the community and beyond were enlisted as supporters for the hospital's arguments and were provided to the reporter as 3rd-party sources.

• A letter-to-the-editor writing campaign was developed and implemented allowing doctors and other allies of the hospital to agree, clarify, or dispute claims made in published articles about the case.

RESULTS

The messaging, reporter meetings, and letter-writing paid off.  Subsequent stories were much more detailed and appeared neutral to positive in their bias.  The suit was concluded in the hospital's favor and a carefully crafted, positive statement by the hospital announcing its victory concluded the matter.