Get Started for FREE
Sign up with Facebook Sign up with X
I don't have a Facebook or a X account
In this 2.5-minute audio snippet, Pharmaguy contemplates how big drug companies can get hundreds of thousands of 'likes' on Facebook but score very low among patient groups worldwide. Only 25% of patients, for example, think pharma marketing is ethical. A case in point is Low-T direct-to-consumer advertising.
The 2017 Edelman Trust Barometer paints a sobering picture of the state of trust around the world…[but] the healthcare industry is making slow but steady progress. Trust in healthcare, as well as in all five subsectors of healthcare we study (pharmaceutical/drug companies, consumer health/over the counter, biotech/life sciences, insurance and hospitals/clinics), is actually on the rise, gaining momentum from last year and reversing a backwards trend we saw last year for pharma (globally and in the U.S.) and biotech (in the U.S. only).
Pharma may be up four points in the U.S., but that gives it a score of just 51, squeaking into the “neutral” range by only one point.
[Meanwhile: “Pharma Industry Reputation Hits 7-Year Low According to Harris Poll”; http://sco.lt/9ACnPV This poll finds only 29% of U.S. consumers think “positively” of the pharma industry.]
Pharma in particular continues to face headwinds, with the Trust Barometer showing that globally:
Further Reading:
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.
Several of the patient organizations participating in this survey receive funding from the pharmaceutical industry.
Several of the patient organizations participating in this survey receive funding from the pharmaceutical industry.
Several of the patient organizations participating in this survey receive funding from the pharmaceutical industry.
An independent study by PatientView
Findings based on a survey of 1,150 patient groups (from 58 countries and of differing specialties)Survey conducted mid-November 2014 to mid-January 2015Patient-group feedback on the corporate reputation of the entire pharma industry during 2014Patient-group feedback on the corporate reputation of 37 individual pharma companies in 2014Results for 2014 are compared with those of 2013, 2012, and 2011
The 37 pharma companies reviewed in the study are: AbbVie l Actavis l Allergan l Amgen l Astellas l AstraZeneca l Baxter International l Bayer l Biogen Idec l Boehringer-Ingelheim l Bristol-Myers Squibb l Celgene l Eisai l Eli Lilly (Lilly) l Gilead l GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) l Grũnenthal l Ipsen l Janssen l Lundbeck l Menarini l Merck & Co (USA) l Merck KgA (Germany) l Mylan l Novartis l Novo Nordisk l Otsuka l Pfizer l Roche l Sanofi l Servier l Shire l Stada Arzneimittel l Takeda l Teva l UCB l ViiV Healthcare
The corporate reputation of individual pharma companies (as seen from a patient perspective) shows some significant changes between 2014 and 2013 (37 companies assessed in 2014; 33 companies in 2013).
Several of the patient organizations participating in this survey receive funding from the pharmaceutical industry. This is common practice especially in the EU where pharma companies cannot promote product directly to consumers but must depend upon intermediaries such as patient organizations -- some of which pharma companies set up themselves -- to help them reach consumers.
Also note that Lundbeck (after slumping to 22nd in 2013—almost certainly because patient groups reacted to the June 2013 news that the company had been fined by the European Commission) has managed to move back up the rankings in 2014 to 5th. How quickly patients forget! It's difficult to believe. More likely is that Lundbeck spread goodwill via increased grants to patient groups. I'm just speculating here.
In response to Pharmaguy's 'speculation'. There is a close relationship between pharma companies and patient groups but not for the reasons he cited and certainly not to the point that it would bias the outcome.
Pharma Manager & Geek ... #hcsmeu #hcsmeufr #health20fr
http://www.scoop.it/t/pharma-geek
http://www.tikimee.com/lionel-reichardt
