In one corner is Aetna U.S. Healthcare, suffering recent blows to its image delivered by the American Medical Association, in the other corner, is the AMA which is trying to block the managed care organization's plans to acquire Prudential Healthcare. So what is Aetna's next punch?
Joyce Oberdorf, Aetna's VP of corporate PR is "loathe" to speak about the deal while it is under federal antitrust review. Sure, that's the legally conservative response that many healthcare organizations have when they are in the throes of a merger transaction. But the bigger PR question is this: do legal safeguards have to strangle communications efforts to protect your corporate reputation?
In December, Aetna announced plans to acquire Prudential, which would catapult it to the country's largest provider of health benefits with 22.4 million members. Immediately, the AMA vehemently attacked the deal, insisting that bigger won't be better for consumers. So far, hundreds of physicians have refused to sign Aetna contracts, largely due to "all-or-nothing" clauses and concerns the health plan will control too much of the market in key regions like Kentucky, Texas, California and Arizona.
And the media is listening. Among the most recent national coverage was a June USA Today article that focused on controversial aspects of the deal. The article reports that Aetna's potential acquisition of Prudential is essentially about controlling the market. Physicians fear Aetna will be able to dictate premiums, benefits and doctors' fees in some regions. Aetna says the deal will broaden its physician networks and offer more choice to patients and employers.
From a PR standpoint, Aetna is missing key opportunities to defend its commitment to patients and physicians. What's at stake, in the minds of the consumers, is that they will be caught in the middle of a dispute between their health plan and physicians - and possibly abandoned by both. Consumers by and large don't see or hear evidence that Aetna is putting their interests first.
Catch 22
Delivering messages that show customers are a priority during merger transactions is something few managed care organizations do well, says Kelly Skolada, assistant director and SVP of Ketchum Public Relations' healthcare practice in Pittsburgh. To avoid venturing into dangerous legal territory, it's important to establish communication boundaries, but not at the expense of being muzzled into a "no comment" stance. The story will go out, with or without your input.
To foster a level of understanding with your legal team about the importance of substantive communication during a merger, it's important to provide them with case histories detailing mergers that have had positive and negative outcomes on corporate reputations, says Skolada. In addition, your executive management must support open but practical communication.
Get this buy-in by educating upper management on how strategic communications during a merger maintains damage control and protects corporate reputation in a time of uncertainty.
(Aetna, Joyce Oberdorf, 860/273-7392; AMA, Mike Lynch, 312/464-4584; Ketchum, Kelley Skolada, 412/456-3880)