Following an engaging press panel discussion at Swaay.Health LIVE 2026, we sat down with Jennifer Bresnick to dig deeper into her reporting for Digital Health Insights: what her most successful stories look like, the must-have elements of a resonant pitch, watch-outs for PR pros, and the critical difference between thoughts and thought leadership.
Related Read >> PAN Press Pass: What Actually Gets Covered in AI Media – Insights from Shaun Sutner at AI Business
Q: What drew you to your beat, and what keeps you interested?
I never planned to get into healthcare, honestly, but it didn’t take long to know I had found the right niche. I’ve always been interested in processes, systems, social patterns, and how humans find their way within them. Healthcare is the ultimate place to explore those dynamics – and hopefully use my voice to inform and support the folks doing the hard work to make those systems better.
I’m still fascinated by the space because everything is evolving all of the time. I’ve produced hundreds (maybe thousands?) of articles over the past 15 years, and I’ve never written the same piece twice. That’s a pretty powerful testament to how much there is to learn and talk about.
Q: How do you determine what to write? What stories do your readers care about most?
I’ve been very fortunate to have had full editorial discretion in my journalist roles. I tend to seek out stories that highlight disparities between the way things have always been done and the way they ought to be…not just to check the boxes or meet the metrics, but because real experiences and real outcomes are on the line.
The most successful stories are the ones that feature subject matter experts who are unflinchingly honest about those gaps and offer specific, actionable advice about what other people in their shoes should do about them.
Q: What are some of your PR pet peeves?
Attempts at emotional manipulation to get me to cover a story, especially when the pitch is not even relevant to my coverage area. Don’t try to give me a guilt trip when I don’t respond to something, or try to flatter me by saying I probably just missed it in my inbox because I’m sooo busy and important that I must be overwhelmed with all the life-changing work that I do. I’m not. I just don’t want to cover your new pet parent wellness portal or whatever.
I do respect (and sometimes need) a single follow-up reminder. But unless we’re already besties and we’re both okay with joking around, the most likely way to get me to respond is to keep it simple, straightforward, and professional.
Q: What does an ideal pitch look like in your inbox? What makes a source stand out in a pitch?
The ideal pitch is relevant to my established coverage area, contains an appropriate amount of background information, is about an actually newsworthy event/topic, and offers a source that fits the vendor-neutral criteria of my publication.
If you’re working on behalf of a tech company, that means offering a provider customer who can speak in detail about their organization’s broader challenges and opportunities during their transformation journey, not just about your product. I won’t just talk to your product manager on his/her own, so if you don’t have an end user ready, it’s probably not the right time to pitch to me.
Sources that really stand out are people who are working in industry collaborations or professional societies, because they can speak from both their individual perspective and on behalf of their peers. I have a strong personal interest in underserved communities, so I am always eager to share those perspectives more broadly. And give me people with nursing backgrounds! Nurses always know what’s up, and they need more representation in the healthcare landscape.
Q: How do you feel about exclusives and embargoes?
My current publication is more about thought leadership and less about breaking news, so embargoes and exclusives aren’t a primary driving factor from that perspective. That being said, I will always honor an embargo if asked of me. And if you want to offer me someone really amazing who isn’t going to speak to anyone else, then of course I’d love an exclusive.
Q: You recently shared this piece of wisdom on stage at Swaay.Health’s annual conference: “Give me thought leadership, not just thoughts.” Can you explain what you mean by this?
It’s really easy to talk about healthcare’s problems. Everyone’s got opinions on why they exist and who’s to blame for them. Misery loves company, so those are popular stories to churn out. It’s also really easy to say that your company’s technology is the best and only solution for fixing everything, and that if everyone just bought it already, we’d be out of this mess in no time.
But that’s not just true. And it’s a disservice to the provider community to keep perpetuating the conversation on that level.
Real thought leadership challenges the reader, sometimes by asking them to face uncomfortable truths, and sometimes by presenting complex but impactful solutions that are often going to take a lot of time, effort, and determination to implement.
Thought leadership has to include something that’s going to make the reader revisit how they address a need in their own organization. If there’s no concrete takeaway that can help the audience think about a problem in a new light, then you haven’t really led them anywhere.
Q: Is there anything you wish more PR pros understood about working with you?
Ask me things! I’m more than happy to schedule a chat with your agency about what I’m looking for and how we can work together. I love doing interviews with providers and payers, and I’m always looking for more real-world industry insights, so I definitely believe that a quick sit-down is time well spent for both of us.
Q: How is AI impacting your coverage?
AI is impacting my coverage because all I ever cover is AI! But within the PR-journalist relationship, I can’t say that I’ve seen a huge difference. Sure, some of the pitches are written with AI, but those are mostly mass mailings about topics that I wouldn’t consider for my coverage anyway.
The bigger issue is how PR and marketing teams are overusing AI to craft earned or sponsored content that they’re hoping to place in trade publications. As a freelancer working with digital health companies, I’ve seen so many teams using AI as a power sander to scrub substantive, well-written drafts of any type of personality, edge, or meaningful insights until they no longer sound remotely human.
That’s not the content world I want to live in, as a writer, publication editor, or a reader. I would urge PR and marketing teams to strongly resist going in that direction for their B2B content, because it’s not what audiences actually respond to.
In a World Dominated by AI, Human Connection Remains King
The evolution of AI discoverability has underscored the importance of earned media to build brand visibility and credibility. Our recent Brand Experience Report revealed that 44 percent of ChatGPT links analyzed came from PR-influenced sources, including editorial media. But the rapid utilization of AI also means pitching has become even more competitive, with reporters receiving hundreds of pitches (many AI-written) in their inboxes each day.
A topic discussed on Jennifer’s press panel at Swaay.Health LIVE was the importance of PR-journalist relationships. If a reporter recognizes your name in their inbox, they are more likely to work with you or at least provide feedback. At PAN, relationship building is a core tenet of our media approach – it is called media relations, after all. We invest in asking the right questions and being a helpful resource to build genuine, trusting relationships over time, and AI certainly cannot do that for us.
Looking for a partner who understands that human connections, not AI content, are key to moving the needle on your brand’s AI discoverability? Get in touch with our team.
For more takeaways from Swaay.Health LIVE 2026, check out my LinkedIn post.
