I'm struggling a little with how to phrase this, so I'm just going to write and see how it goes...
Lately I've been noticing what I find to be an interesting dilemma for many specialists. As we develop technology, we talk about how it will improve someone's life. For a cardiologist, we are able to use CT to do a basic coronary analysis without an invasive procedure and rule out many patients that they would otherwise have to take to the cath lab. For the gastroenterologist, we are proposing the same thing with virtual colonoscopy.
The marketing pitch is easy, right? We tell the physicians this will make your life easier. You don't have to worry yourself with the routine procedures. You can get more patients through. Life is good. Or is it?
As a cardiologist or a gastroenterologist, yeah, it's great to have the challenging cases that allow you to stretch your thinking, perform an amazing procedure, and live up to the lofty views. But, it's the routine that puts the money in the pocket. A routine colonoscopy with no complications can take 30 minutes or so, and put 2-3x more money into the GIs pocket. Same with a routine angio. And, these are less likely to be met with complications, stress, etc.
When positioning to these customers, it is important to keep this in mind. As marketers, we want to tout all the time saving, risk saving that these cool and great technologies offer the physician and ultimately the patient. But it's also important to remember that we need to show them how to build a business around these new technologies. We need to become more consultative. For the GI guy, it's about helping him set up a practice that will allow him to boost screening by using virtual, which will in turn keep enough people coming through the door to keep the endoscopy suite packed. The same goes for helping the cardiologist get her practice established.
Ultimately, it's about helping them first embrace the technology as something to help them grow, showing them how to attract more patients/referrals, and really differentiating themselves from all of the other practices out there by truly catering to the different needs and desires of the end customer, the patient.
Showing posts with label gastroenterologist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gastroenterologist. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Virtual Colonoscopy; A Three Part Series - The Facility
After a short absense while I attended the Abdominal Radiology Course (great content for a future blog or two), I wanted to wrap up my discussion on the series of virtual colonoscopy by looking at the facility.
CTC should offer facilities a unique way to differentiate themselves from everyone else. There are many different places that could offer the procedure including hospitals and diagnostic imaging centers. But, the place that I want to focus is the physician's office, namely the GI office.
Right now, it seems that many gastroenterologists are fighting the idea of CTC. They don't want to take the scope out of their hands. But, they are missing a golden opportunity to market to the communities they serve, grow their business, and even make their work more enjoyable.
Here's an ideal scenario. As a practice they structure themselves to offer both VC and OC. They structure the facility so that the patient comes in and goes through the VC screening. If there are any questions or lesions, they are sent over to OC for a procedure. For the 88% that are clean, they are done, and they go home (the 88% is from the ACRIN trial where it was concluded that 88% of participants would not have had to undergo an optical colonoscopy based on the CTC findings).
As a facility, you can then market this concept to the physicians and patients in the area. Non-invasive screening, but the option for same day removal. One single prep. Go about your day, and feel good. What are the chances that the number of patients increases? Initial studies indicate it will be better than good.
Next, market this to insurance companies as a package. Say they pay one flat rate regardless of outcome. This means you win on VC, lose a little on OC, but end up ahead because you are doing far more VC than OC. Plus by covering screening, they are less likely to have to pay on the back end for the treatment of cancer.
Lastly, market to the physicians. To the GI guys, it's not about taking the scope out of their hands. Rather, it's allowing them to forego the mundane, basic, non-polyp colons and focus on more challenging cases and polypectomies, thus being more stimulating for them (the same thing is occuring with the cardiologists as they realize it's more "fun" to deal with the challenging cases and leave the basic, routine ones to CT). For radiologists, this allows them an opportunity to do some additional reading, or it allows teleradiology practices the opportunity to increase their workload.
All-in-all, if this is properly positioned, it should be a win-win for everyone. It is going to take some education of the parties involved, but in the end, I think the advent of VC is going to lead to increased screening, which will lead to increased survival rates and increased revenues for the GI facilities. Because, when we get right down to it, it's not about taking the scope out of their hands, it's the fear of taking the dollars out of their pockets.
CTC should offer facilities a unique way to differentiate themselves from everyone else. There are many different places that could offer the procedure including hospitals and diagnostic imaging centers. But, the place that I want to focus is the physician's office, namely the GI office.
Right now, it seems that many gastroenterologists are fighting the idea of CTC. They don't want to take the scope out of their hands. But, they are missing a golden opportunity to market to the communities they serve, grow their business, and even make their work more enjoyable.
Here's an ideal scenario. As a practice they structure themselves to offer both VC and OC. They structure the facility so that the patient comes in and goes through the VC screening. If there are any questions or lesions, they are sent over to OC for a procedure. For the 88% that are clean, they are done, and they go home (the 88% is from the ACRIN trial where it was concluded that 88% of participants would not have had to undergo an optical colonoscopy based on the CTC findings).
As a facility, you can then market this concept to the physicians and patients in the area. Non-invasive screening, but the option for same day removal. One single prep. Go about your day, and feel good. What are the chances that the number of patients increases? Initial studies indicate it will be better than good.
Next, market this to insurance companies as a package. Say they pay one flat rate regardless of outcome. This means you win on VC, lose a little on OC, but end up ahead because you are doing far more VC than OC. Plus by covering screening, they are less likely to have to pay on the back end for the treatment of cancer.
Lastly, market to the physicians. To the GI guys, it's not about taking the scope out of their hands. Rather, it's allowing them to forego the mundane, basic, non-polyp colons and focus on more challenging cases and polypectomies, thus being more stimulating for them (the same thing is occuring with the cardiologists as they realize it's more "fun" to deal with the challenging cases and leave the basic, routine ones to CT). For radiologists, this allows them an opportunity to do some additional reading, or it allows teleradiology practices the opportunity to increase their workload.
All-in-all, if this is properly positioned, it should be a win-win for everyone. It is going to take some education of the parties involved, but in the end, I think the advent of VC is going to lead to increased screening, which will lead to increased survival rates and increased revenues for the GI facilities. Because, when we get right down to it, it's not about taking the scope out of their hands, it's the fear of taking the dollars out of their pockets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
