PHARMA NEWS, MULTICHANNEL & CROSSCHANNEL MAKETING

THE CORPORATE REPUTATION OF THE PHARMA INDUSTRY IN 2015: THE PERSPECTIVE OF 90 PATIENT GROUPS  with an interest in HEART AND CIRCULATORY CONDITIONS (2nd edition)
London, Monday 7th November 2016. This report is based on the findings of a PatientView November 2015-January 2016 survey exploring the views of 90 patient groups with an interest in heart-and-circulatory conditions. These patient groups came from 35 countries (14 of the 90 were based in Denmark). The report provides feedback (from the perspective of  these patient groups) on the corporate reputation of the entire pharma industry during 2015, as well as on the individual performance of 15 pharma companies at six key indicators that influence corporate reputation. The 2015 heart-and-circulatory results are compared with the responses received in 2014 from patient groups in the same therapy area, as well as with those provided by patient groups from across all therapy areas in 2015.
For the purposes of this report, the phrase ‘corporate reputation’ is defined as the extent to which pharma companies are meeting the expectations of patients and patient groups.

The 90 heart-and-circulatory patient groups responding to the 2015 ‘Corporate Reputation of Pharma’ survey were more positive about the pharma industry’s corporate reputation than heart-and-circulatory patient groups responding in 2014 (but not as positive as urinary and diabetes patient groups in 2015).

As many as 51.2% of the 90 patient groups with an interest in heart-and-circulatory conditions and responding to the 2015 ‘Corporate Reputation of Pharma’ survey stated that the pharma industry as a whole had an “Excellent” or “Good” corporate reputation that year. The equivalent figure for patient groups from across all therapy areas in 2015 was 44.7%. Patient groups with an interest in heart-and-circulatory conditions ranked the pharma industry 4th out of 8 healthcare-industry sectors for corporate reputation in 2015—ahead of private healthcare, generics, and both not-for-profit, and for-profit health insurers. In 2014, heart-and-circulatory patient groups also ranked pharma 4th out of 8 healthcare-industry sectors, but with a much lower average score. Pharma was ranked 5th in 2015’s global results.

Why has pharma’s corporate reputation improved among heart-and-circulatory patient groups? One reason may account for the rise in pharma’s approval ratings among heart-and-circulatory patient groups—pharma’s growing output of innovative medicines. When asked about pharma’s ability to perform specific activities, as many as 80% of 2015’s respondent patient groups with an interest in heart-and-circulatory conditions stated that the industry was “Excellent” or “Good” at making high-quality, useful products. The equivalent figure from heart-and-circulatory patient groups in 2014 was 57%.
Patient groups with an interest in heart-and-circulatory conditions ranked Pfizer overall 1st out of 15 pharma companies for corporate reputation in 2015 (for a second year in a row). They also ranked Pfizer first for two of the six indicators of corporate reputation: patient safety, and the ability to create high-quality products.
Regarding the other four indicators of corporate reputation: AbbVie ranked 1st for patient centricity (the company was not included in 2014’s analyses); Novartis ranked 1st for the provision of patient information; and Sanofi ranked 1st for both transparency and integrity.
The PCRI data for the heart-and-circulatory league tables in 2015 and 2014, and for patient groups from across all therapy areas in 2015, show that Sanofi, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly, and GSK all improved their corporate reputation among heart-and-circulatory patient groups between those two years. The biggest leap was made by Sanofi, which went from 7th out of 11 companies in 2014 to 3rd out of 15 companies in 2015.

Click here for Full contents and tables of the report.

The biggest challenge facing pharma, and all healthcare for that matter, is the drive for increased profit at the expense of patients. Unless pharma acknowledges that they need to put patients first in everything they do, they are going to pay the price in increased calls for a “single payer” system.

Following Digital Pharma in social media I was reminded that there still are a lot of very good people in the industry who understand the challenge of marketing to patients today. However, like I wrote before, there is a disconnect between developing a strategy and actually implementing it.

When I see the salaries of pharma CEO’s and health insurance executives I am often troubled and confused. How could a health insurance CEO take home tens of millions of dollars in compensation when they raise rates for customers? How can a pharma CEO take home so much money knowing that there are some patients who can’t afford their medications?

DTC marketers know what they need to do to make their marketing relevant to their audience, but they often lack the budgets to make it happen. Everything is now based on ROI instead of asking “how can we help patients?”. Offering a medication to fight chronic health problems is not enough. Patients today need help from a healthcare system that treats them as a number not a person. They are left to fend for themselves when it comes to understanding how to live with health issues that affect their lives.

A new breed of pharma CEO is needed. Someone who can tell Wall Street that what we are doing to help patients will lead to better profits and someone who doesn’t ask for a compensation package that makes them a millionaire ten times over. Most importantly, we need CEO’s that allow the rank and file to implement programs that actually embrace patients based on their needs rather than a projected ROI.

Pharma, for years, has struggled to identify the sweet spot where both patient and business needs are met. If you can't get the balance between pharma and patient focus right, neither side of the relationship will benefit.

eyeforpharma and EngageRx have conducted a global survey of pharmaceutical executives in order to pinpoint:
What patient centricity really means

How we can achieve it through the right leadership and skillsets
What role must be played by varying functions
The necessary steps needed to be worthy of the title 'patient-centric'

You can download your exclusive copy of the results here.

Key contributors to the whitepaper include:

• Christi Shaw, former U.S. Country Head and President, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation
• Ramona Sequeira, President, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd
• John Gerow, Service Team Strategy Partner, Ashfield & Principle, JG Consulting Inc.
• Deborah Waterhouse, SVP and Business Unit Head UD Primary Care, GSK
• Jens Lipinski, Head of Patient Relations, Bayer Healthcare

Discover how you can make patient and business focuses tangible and balanced - through budget, measurement, and training, download here.

See the results of our patient services survey. Learn about expectations in the patient journey, and what these findings mean for pharmaceutical companies.

Pharmaguy interviews Anne C. Beal, M.D., MPH, Chief Patient Officer, Sanofi, and Melva T. Covington, MPH, MBA., PhD, Project Leader, Research and Development, Sanofi. They talk about their roles in bringing the patient perspective into Sanofi's work to advance Sanofi's ability to deliver health care solutions that matter most to patients and those who care for them.

It seems that the pharmaceutical industry’s increasing attention on patient centricity is starting to rub off on its corporate reputation, which has hit a four year-high according to findings of the latest PatientView survey.
 
Pharma’s standing in this respect has hit its highest level since 2011, when the PatientView survey began, with 44.7 percent of the 1,075 responding patient groups stating that it had an “Excellent” or “Good” corporate reputation in 2015, compared with just over a third in 2012, while 28 percent said its reputation had improved during the year.

The vast majority of patient groups responding (72 percent) said that pharma as a whole was “Excellent” or “Good” during the year at producing high-quality products. But, on the downside, just 15 percent said the industry was “Excellent” or “Good” at having fair pricing policies (and at not making excessive profits), while 45 percent said pharma was poor at this activity. 
 
Overall, out of the 48 companies assessed for their corporate reputation by patient groups in 2015, ViiV Healthcare took the top spot again with AbbVie remaining a close second. Lundbeck moved up two places from 2014 to third place, Johnson & Johnson group Janssen jumped four place to fourth, Novo Nordisk slipped three place into fifth, and Gilead moved up eight places into 6th. 
 
According to the report, a number of factors influence patient groups’ opinions on the corporate standing of pharma companies, including: product launches that offer a genuine, measurable and positive impact on a medical condition; mergers & acquisitions, which are not viewed favourable particularly if they target tax bills and overheads; and drug pricing and market access, one of the most sensitive topics for patient groups.

Any good research-based pharma company is built on the foundations of strong science and relationships with healthcare providers. As such, as we have seen significant interaction between these groups, with medical doctors either advising companies or taking on roles internally (noting that this should be in a transparent way).

If we now consider that as a model for the evolution of patient-centricity, I believe we are seeing the same transformation. The way in which social media democratised access to health information gave the patient a voice – and a new way for the pharma industry to listen to it. Next, proactive patients went a stage further, using social media to empower themselves as epatients, or Patient Opinion Leaders, sitting alongside more traditional medical Key Opinion Leaders. The industry started listening to them.

With all due respect, you are not automatically a “patient-centric” company just because you added that term to your marketing materials and hired someone with an eponymous title who travels the country with a spectacular LinkedIn profile on fact-finding missions to buy nonprofit CEO’s lunch to data mine their insights.

And don’t get me started on regulatory. We in the Patient Advocacy sector are not naive to The Physician Payments Sunshine Act. (It just rolls off the tongue, doesn’t it?) This onomatopoeic law is killing all of us. It stifles innovation (with a lower case “i”), presents innumerable encumbrances to actually getting anything done and ties up any possibility for success in a sea of red tape negotiations.

My point is that that a re-imagining of patient-centricity needs to occur STAT. Otherwise no one wins.

PAOs are at fault too. We can’t just take your money and not expect to produce ROI. And yet, there are a few nonprofits for whom ROI is in their DNA. They operate using program management and evidence-based patient outcome reporting. Pharmas that choose to meaningfully engage with these groups benefit from a measurable competitive advantage by viewing us as business partners, rather than charities looking for a handout.

In these exclusive videos eyeforpharma's Paul SImms spoke with Eduardo Sanchiz and Alfonso Ugarte, resp CEO and Senior Director of Global Business Units of Almirall, on the changing pharma landscape, patient value and rewriting the business plan.

According to Richie Etwaru, chief digital officer at IMS Health, "by listening to customers, and working to understand the good, bad and ugly parts of the patient experience, life-sciences companies can become patient-centric and move from “dislike” to “like.” Only then will they buy more of our products and services."

He also says: "For life-sciences companies to truly understand the patient experience, we need to study it so carefully that we figure out what isn't working and find a way to fix it. How? Technology can help. Technology today enables companies to listen to the sentiments of the marketplace, understand what people like and dislike and determine why they prefer one brand over another."

One key problem for pharmaceutical companies trying to engage with patients: they don’t speak the same language.