Consumer engagement: making a difference through differentiation

by Torsten Bernewitz

In a recent post (http://payer-strategies.blogspot.com/2011/09/what-does-it-mean-to-become-consumer.html), I proposed that to embrace the direct-to-consumer marketing model, payers must become excellent on four dimensions: consumer insights, consumer engagement, simplicity/openness, and stakeholder alignment.

While another post (http://payer-strategies.blogspot.com/2011/09/inside-consumer-insight.html), probed deeper into the first dimension - gaining deep consumer insights - today I want to explore the second dimension: effective consumer engagement.

Once the consumer landscape has been well understood and mapped out, we need to make two important decisions: with which consumers do we want to build relationships, and how?

We need to tailor the offering, value proposition, messaging as well as the way how products and services are offered, to the specific needs and preferences of each segment. The “Goldilocks Principle” applies: don’t under- or over-serve a specific segment, get it “just right”.

The vast differences in consumer needs and preferences can perhaps be illustrated by two groups of consumers that are expected to join the health insurers market.

• The first group will join the market through the individual mandate provision of the Affordable Care Act. This group is young and healthy, currently uninsured but with disposable income, i.e., they are “good risks” and potentially a very profitable segment. This group is also used to online stores that serve and simplify all their needs, and it is unlikely that they are very keen on paper applications or brokers. They are quick at making judgments, and vocal - sharing experiences (and griping about bad ones) in real-time with their friends.
• The second group will join the market through Medicaid expansion, the federal subsidies above the 133% FPL cut-off, the guaranteed issue provision of the law, or from smaller employers who stop offering coverage. This group is generally older, in worse health, with larger families but fewer resources. It can be expected that they are less internet savvy and tech-gadget oriented. Some of them, if they are near the 133% FPL threshold, may flip-flop between Medicaid eligibility and the exchanges because of income changes.

The descriptions of the two groups above are just characterizations in big brush strokes. In reality, there will be significant differences within these groups as well, for example based on education, income, location, age etc., which require further customization of the engagement approach. One size, clearly, does not fit all.

It may be beneficial for health insurers to learn from the experiences of other players in the healthcare field who are making similar transitions to engage the consumer, for example manufacturers of medical devices. Blood glucose meters for diabetes are a classic example, and the medical device players in this space may have just as many marketing people focused on patients and channel marketing as they do on healthcare providers. Several companies have publicly declared "patient first" strategies and are talking a lot about "wellness" and "patient experience" – just like health insurers. They have been hiring marketers from traditional CPG companies to help develop effective consumer engagement approaches. They develop solutions that are customized to specific consumer profiles, for example products that are easier to use for consumers with low literacy and numeracy skills.
________________________

Torsten Bernewitz is a healthcare industry analyst and management consultant.
He is Managing Principal, Health Insurers and Payers at ZS Associates.

This post is the author’s own and does not necessarily represent ZS Associates’ positions, strategies or opinions.

Contact: torsten.bernewitz@zsassociates.com