PUBLICATION DATE: THURSDAY, JUNE 11th 2020

~ Contact: Alex Wyke ~ Tel: +44-(0)7960-855-019 ~ Email: report@patient-view.com

This is the 8th edition of 'The Corporate Reputation of Pharma - from the Perspective of UK Patient Groups'. The 2019 results are drawn from a survey of UK patient groups, conducted November 2019 - February 2020.

About the 2019 survey of UK patient groups

2019’s 89 respondent UK patient groups specialised in 48 different therapy areas.

The 89 UK patient groups had the following geographic remits: 63% had a national geographic remit; 15% an international remit; 7% regional (an area within the UK); and 15% were local.

On UK patient-group relationships with pharma

56% of the 89 UK patient groups responding to the 2019 survey worked with at least one pharma company.

The 16 companies included for assessment in the 2019 UK analyses (in alphabetical order):

A note about COVID-19 and this study's results

Covid-19 should have a relatively limited impact on many of the results of the PatientView 2019 ‘Corporate-Reputation’ study, because the survey took place (November 2019 to late-February 2020) largely before the crisis became global. However, announcements about Covid-19 by some pharma companies during January and February 2020, may have influenced the views of patient groups responding to the ‘Corporate-Reputation’ survey during its last two months.

What this report contains

Industry-wide analyses: The report examines the issues of importance to UK patient groups, including: levels of industry innovation; access to treatments; transparency of the industry; and drug pricing. Analyses are reinforced by extensive feedback from 2019's respondent UK patient groups, classified in a 14-page Appendix according to the specialties of the respondent patient groups.

Individual company analyses: The 16 pharma companies are reviewed by 2019's 89 respondent UK patient groups for overall corporate reputation, and for performance at 12 individual indicators of corporate reputation.

The 12 indicators used to measure corporate reputation from a patient perspective

Key industry-wide findings

Since 2012, when this analysis was first undertaken, UK patient groups have consistently reported lower approval ratings of the pharma industry than patient groups worldwide [see chart below]. However, the percentage of respondent UK patient groups believing the pharma industry’s corporate reputation to be “Excellent” or “Good” increased from 2018 (28%) to 2019 (33%).

FibroFlutters (regional patient groups specialising in various chronic diseases):

"Being involved in a few initiatives regarding medicines development, I can say that it is improving—but it’s a long way from what I deem good. Patient Focused Medicines Development (PFMD) is a pharma-led drug dev, developing toolkits for educating about patient engagement. Many companies are creating patient-expert pools, so things are on the up.”

The corporate reputation of the pharmaceutical industry, 2012-2019. Percentage of respondent UK v. global patient groups describing the industry as having an “Excellent” or “Good” corporate reputation

On transparency: The ‘Corporate-Reputation’ survey asks respondent patient groups to consider the pharma industry’s record of transparency in three subject areas: pricing issues; sharing of clinical data; and funding of external stakeholders (such as doctors). Only 22% or less of 2019’s respondent UK patient groups stated that the pharmaceutical industry was “Excellent” or “Good” at any of the three types of transparency. Comments made to the survey by respondent UK patient groups reveal that, often, the issue for them was not a failure by industry to be transparent, but more, industry’s poor levels of communication. As a national patient group specialising in atopic dermatitis/eczema stated: “Make clear any funding or partnership arrangements on the company's website, and for information to be found easily.” Similarly, CCL Support said: “Publish information about funding on their website, and the results of all trials with their drugs.”

On pricing: From the data collected, and feedback received from the respondent UK patient groups, pricing remained an area of dissatisfaction in 2019. As one national patient group specialising in kidney conditions told the survey: “Ensure that the price enables the National Health Service (NHS) to purchase their products—that is, price the products to make them cost effective.” Just 8% of the 89 respondent UK patient groups judged the industry to be “Excellent” or “Good” at having fair pricing policies in 2019.

On patient engagement in R&D: 2019’s respondent UK patient groups, as in previous years, were clear that not only do they want companies to offer transparent and timely access to clinical-trial data, but also that these patient groups wish to be involved throughout the drug research-and-development process. One national patient group specialising in skin disorders noted: “Work more closely with patient groups, so that the pharma company understands the real needs of patients, and contributes directly to improving their lives, alongside the development of new drugs.”

Key company findings

Janssen and Gilead continued to dominate the UK league tables for 2019. Two companies, Sanofi and Boehringer Ingelheim, made large jumps up the UK league tables, 2018-2019.

Ranked 1st: Janssen was ranked overall 1st out of 16 companies for corporate reputation in 2019 by the 30 respondent UK patient groups familiar with the company. In 2018, Janssen was ranked 2nd out of 19 companies by the UK patient groups familiar with it.
Ranked 2nd: Gilead was ranked overall 2nd out of 16 companies for corporate reputation in 2019 by the 24 respondent UK patient groups familiar with the company. In 2018, Gilead was ranked 1st out of 19 companies by the UK patient groups familiar with it.
Ranked 3rd: Sanofi was ranked overall 3rd out of 16 companies for corporate reputation in 2019 by the 33 respondent UK patient groups familiar with the company. In 2018, Sanofi was ranked 9th out of 19 companies by the UK patient groups familiar with it.
Ranked 4th: Boehringer Ingelheim was ranked overall 4th out of 16 companies for corporate reputation in 2019 by the 27 respondent UK patient groups familiar with the company. In 2018, Boehringer was ranked 17th out of 19 companies by the UK patient groups familiar with it.

One caveat

A majority of the 89 UK patient groups responding to the 2019 ‘Corporate-Reputation’ survey felt unable to pick out any one company as “Best” at:

ensuring patient safety;
being transparent;
having integrity;
providing services ‘beyond the pill’; or at
engaging patients in R&D.

However, these UK results are in general conformity with the opinions of 2019’s 1,850 respondent patient groups from all countries.

Comparing just 13 of the largest pharma companies (‘big pharma’), 2019 v. 2018

To enable peer-to-peer comparisons of the results, PatientView recalculates overall rankings for the 12 indicators of corporate reputation, including 13 largest, multinational, multi-therapy pharma companies. These ‘big-pharma’ results provide a different perspective on how the largest pharmaceutical companies fare for corporate reputation, enabling peer-to-peer analyses.

Percentage of respondent UK patient groups stating “None” or “Do not know” any company that was “Best” at an activity, 2019

For further information on PatientView's latest publication, 'What 89 UK patient groups think of 16 pharma companies in 2019', please use the contact details at the top.

To download contents, list of tables and charts, and sample materials, please click below:

https://bit.ly/2U4NdiK

~END OF NOTIFICATION~