
Some hospitals are struggling right now, and marketing can help them. But what won't work is pumping more marketing dollars into a fatally flawed institution in hopes of reviving it.
I saw two tweets during the past week that triggered the same red flag: they proffered marketing as the savior for ailing hospitals. This marketer is skeptical. Here are the tweets:
@KarenEllis1: St Vincent in Manhattan Shutters – What I Wish They Knew About Increasing Patient Volume #hcmktg http://dld.bz/chsr
@mspier: Excellent piece on how aggressive #hcmktg may save Grady Memorial in Atlanta. Is it a smart move? http://shar.es/mjDZe
The first tweet links to the “Turn Up Your Volume” blog and a post by John Luginbill, who has some impressive credentials. But I take issue with his statement that St. Vincent’s hospital in Manhattan “could have been saved by marketing.”
The second tweet links to an article by Marianne Aiello, marketing editor for HealthLeaders Media, who writes a nice defense of Grady Memorial’s marketing budget. But I disagree with the sub-headline: “Why Marketing May Revive the Struggling Hospital.”
Before I go further, apologies to Luginbill and Aiello. I don’t know either of them, and I don’t want to make them enemies of mine. In Aiello’s defense, she probably didn’t write the headline. In the copy editor’s defense—the one who probably did write the headline—she’s trying to get people to read the article. Same goes for Luginbill: he’s drawing attention to his specialty: increasing patient volume at hospitals. Can’t blame a guy for that, can I?
I talked this week with some friends who work for some very successful Utah hospitals, but those hospitals are struggling right now because of the overall economy. Less disposable income has meant fewer elective (read: “money making”) procedures being performed in these facilities.
Now, these hospitals aren’t in danger of closing like St. Vincent’s did or selling out like Detroit Medical Center did. The Utah hospitals serve populations that are relatively healthy and relatively well-insured. They can rely on commercially insured patients to make up the difference for the uninsured and for those insured by government payers like Medicaid and Medicare. Grady, St. Vincent’s and DMC all serve different patient populations: more unhealthy with a high percentage of uninsured or government-insured patients. They can’t rely as much on commercially insured patients.
The answer that Luginbill and Aiello offer is for public, urban hospitals to use marketing to go out and get more commercially insured patients. I see a few problems with that:
- There’s a finite pool of commercially insured Americans, and they’ve probably already chosen a hospital close to them
- You can bet that if urban hospitals use marketing to attract the commercially insured, suburban hospitals will do the same thing, too
- Health reform won’t kick in more insured people until 2014; even then, many of the newly insured will be on poor paying government plans
But let’s say that more marketing does bring more commercially-insured patients to urban hospitals. Will that fact alone save the hospitals from the brink of ruin? Not necessarily. Tight spending and prudent decision-making are key to running a hospital—any hospital—and just because there’s an influx of cash doesn’t mean that the root of the problem is resolved.
We all know the old saying, “put lipstick on a pig.” It refers to dressing up some unattractive product or service in hopes of making it more attractive. That can sometimes work, honestly. But what won’t work is pumping more marketing dollars into a fatally flawed product in hopes of reviving it. Marketing alone can’t save a failing hospital.


