As I highlighted a few months ago, FTC is hard at work updating 30-year old rules on testimonials for the age when anyone is a publisher: "FTC Guidelines for Endorsements Could Shake Up Social Media Marketing".

They made headlines again last week touting the need for regulation: "FTC plans to monitor blogs for claims, payments". Now with the agency's direction being less of a surpirse we are starting to see more coverage and real discussion of if and how such regulations may or may not work.

A government agency regulating an industry? What could go wrong?

This year I have written several pieces calling out FDA for their lack of enlightenment about Internet and social media marketing. My conclusion has been that literal application of last century regulations, without understanding the changes in media are counter-productive to FDA's stated mission.

I spared no scorn criticising the agency in posts titled like "FDA Bureaucrats Gone Wild, Launch a Witch Hunt on Internet Marketing", "Will DDMAC Ever Get a Clue About Internet Marketing?" and "Dumb Regulation Watch: Traditional Healthcare Marketing Rules Can Be Meaningless Online". I have been ahead of my colleagues in calling out FDA's flaws, but now looks like the frustration with the agency is growing louder and louder.

In the last weeks pharma blogs hosted some pointed exchanges

Recently I have written about how social media is entering the mainstream of PR profession and how a huge number of people without direct experience with social media go around declaring themselves as "experts".

Apparently this abundance of noise is being observed by more and more people and is stirring up serious resentment. I came across a recent post on PC World's blog that got as blunt as it could be: "Beware the Social Media Charlatans".

Read that post if you are considering social media for business!

The plan for healthcare overhaul, widely expected this year is finally taking shape. Over this weekend, a first specific proposal has been released, in 167 pages! The draft is said to originate in Ted Kennedy's committee and is covered in NYT.

As you would expect, the devil is in the details. While summaries by New York Times and other media outlets are helpful, it is always great to be able to go straight to the source. Patients United Now, a new group advocating healthcare choice, posted the full 167-page document for public review.

What are the key questions, issues and highlights?

Without a doubt, social media marketing is firmly entering the mainstream. Per my recent report from PRSA Health Academy, it is rapidly taking over the world of PR, while also creating legions of questionable "experts".

The real issue, as I said time and again, is how effective social media is for driving business results that matter? A recent study by Knowledge Networks (via WebGuild, with great comments) should open the eyes of many newcomers, but would not be a surprise to those of us who have been in the thick of it for awhile.

WebGuild summary is blunt: Social Media Doesn’t Drive Purchases

Last week I came across an interesting survey, conducted by MarketingSherpa with a provocative headline: New Chart: Majority of Marketers Believe No Experience is Needed to be a Social Media Expert.

The survey says a lot about the state of social media marketing and PR. In a nutshell, a lot of marketing managers confuse personal experience and awareness of social media with knowing how to put it to effective use.

The data is not too surprising but could be quite enlightening

Last week, I had the pleasure of attending and speaking at the 20th Annual PRSA Health Academy conference in Washington DC.

The conference delivered on its title "Leveraging Social Media in Health Care Public Relations"offering a great overview of how social media can, is and will be used by healthcare communicators. Having presented at the same conference in 2007 and 2008 I have been blown away by the progress made in adopting social media by one of the most risk averse industries in existence.

What are my key observations from the conference?

The news from the Electronic Medical Record front keep getting darker. For years many industry folks kept arguing that HIPAA is sufficient and no further privacy or security regulation is needed. VDHP breach will put an end to this debate.

What happened at Virginia Department of Health Professions? Hackers broke into the system, downloaded the records, wiped them out on agency's servers and demanded cool $10 million to have them returned. So far this looks like the most damaging breach of medical data showcasing the Pandora's box.

What are the nuances and how do they matter?

Last week I took part in an interesting discussion (privately on Facebook) that touched what may or may not be appropriate in pharma marketing. The real point of contention emerged: how much relative say should the scientific and marketing side have in pharma business direction.

As I lamented repeatedly this year, the anti-marketing campaign in healthcare in general and pharma specifically risks going way too far. With pro-regulation crowd taking command of Washington in general and FDA specifically, there is a real risk of harming America's health and pharma capabilities.

So, let me pose a challenge: Why Can't We All Just Get Along?

Anybody who followed this blog closely should not be surprised by my skepticism about Personal Health Records (PHR). A patient-managed record is a feel-good idea that unfortunately lacks the economic model to support itself.

Data quality is one of the factors underappreciated by people who expect that technology will be taken care by someone else. We expect the cars, planes and sewers to just work, why not medical records? Who cares about technical details when we feel entitled to having the data there when we need it?

ePatient Dave's experience blasted this nice illusion into pieces