Healthcare and pharmaceutical SEO from a consultant who works inside MLR review rather than around it. Content briefed for approval, sites built to regulatory constraints, and search strategy that accounts for what you are not permitted to say.
Most healthcare content programmes fail at review, not at planning. A brief written without regard for claim substantiation, fair balance or indication scope comes back from medical, legal and regulatory review so heavily amended that the search rationale is gone. I write briefs that anticipate the review, so what reaches your reviewers is closer to approvable on first pass and what emerges still ranks.

Healthcare sites carry requirements consumer sites never face: audience gating between healthcare professionals and the public, market-specific indication differences, adverse event reporting routes, and content that must be withdrawn on a defined date. These shape information architecture, hreflang and indexation from the start. Retrofitting them onto a site built without them is expensive and usually incomplete.

Health sits squarely in Your Money or Your Life territory, where Google applies its highest quality thresholds and AI answer engines are most conservative about which sources they cite. Named clinical authorship, transparent review dates, cited primary literature and clean structured data are not optional extras here. They are the difference between being a source an answer engine will quote and one it will not.

What’s included
Content briefs written to pass medical, legal and regulatory review.
Audience gating, market variation and indexation planned from the start.
Separate search strategies for two audiences asking different questions.
Author, reviewer and citation structure built for YMYL scrutiny.
Entity and schema work that earns citation in health-related AI answers.
Reporting that respects privacy constraints on health-related data.
FAQ
Yes. I write briefs that account for claim substantiation, fair balance and indication scope before content reaches medical, legal and regulatory reviewers, and I prepare assets in the form your review workflow expects. The practical benefit is fewer review cycles and content that still performs in search after approval.
By targeting the questions your audience actually searches rather than the messages you want to push. Disease education, symptom information, treatment pathways and access questions all carry real volume and rarely require promotional claims. The constraint shapes which keywords are viable, which is a planning decision rather than an obstacle.
Yes, and it is common. I frequently act as the search specialist alongside a creative agency and an internal medical affairs team, supplying the search rationale that neither typically owns. You work with me directly rather than through an account layer.
Google treats health as Your Money or Your Life content and applies its strictest quality thresholds, so authorship, sourcing and accuracy carry weight they do not elsewhere. Add regulatory review, market-by-market indication differences and audience gating, and the same tactics that work in other sectors are either ineffective or not permitted.
Explore the other services: SEO Strategy, Technical Audits, Content Marketing.
A 30-minute call with Matija — no pitch decks, no juniors. Just a straight read on where your biggest search opportunities are.