PatientView press release: In the US, pharma companies come to grips with what it is to be patient centric—though some companies are clearly better than others No Images? Click here In the US, pharma companies come to grips with what it is to be patient centric (though some companies are clearly better than others)Embargoed publication date: Tuesday, 8th May 2018 6AM ETPress release based on the results of a new report: 'The Corporate Reputation of Pharma, 2017—the Perspective of US Patient Groups'The views of 169 US patient groups US patient groups on pharma’s corporate reputation …US patient groups are traditionally more sceptical and suspicious of pharma than their peers in most of the rest of the world—which makes the 2017 US Corporate Reputation results all the more surprising. At first glance, not much seems to have changed in 2017. Only 32% of 2017's 169 respondent US-based patient groups thought that the pharma industry as a whole had an "Excellent" or "Good" corporate reputation (compared with 43% of the 1,330 respondent patient groups worldwide). Moreover, US patient groups in 2017 ranked pharma just 5th out of nine healthcare-industry sectors (compared with its ranking of 3rd out of nine among patient groups worldwide). But a closer analysis of the pharma industry's performance at specific activities reveals a startling turnaround in attitudes in 2017 among some US patient groups [as the charts below show]. A larger proportion of US patient groups than patient groups worldwide in 2017 described the pharma industry as a whole as "Excellent" or "Good" at patient centricity, at integrity, at patient-group partnerships, at the provision of services 'beyond the pill', and at engaging patients/patient groups in R&D. The percentage of patient groups assessing how good or bad the pharmaceutical industry was at carrying out specific activities (all of which influence the industry’s corporate standing with patients and patient groups). Percentage of patient groups stating “Excellent” or “Good”. US patient groups 2017, v. US patient groups 2016, v. patient groups worldwide 2017 In fact, the only activity at which US patient groups in 2017 considered pharma to be worse than the global average was innovation (and then only by a small margin—43% in the US v. 48% worldwide). Comments provided by the 169 US patient groups [included in the report's Appendix I] shed some light on these evolving opinions.
Criticism, advice and suggestions, of course, still featured in the 2017 feedback provided by US patient groups (probably outnumbering the more positive remarks). Nonetheless, only a few years ago, appreciative comments from US patient groups were much rarer. Some companies are better than othersA US national neurological patient group noted that the pharma industry has improved over the years at its core activities. Then the patient group specified variation: "Some companies are better than others. We have some great companies." Examining which pharma companies were the latter in 2017 brings the next surprise. US patient groups chose not to vote any home-grown companies into the top three slots for corporate reputation in 2017. Instead, they gave first, second, and third places to a Danish, a Belgian, and a Japanese pharma company, respectively.
Furthermore, no US-headquartered pharma company was ranked 1st by US patient groups in 2017 for any of the 12 PatientView indicators of corporate reputation. Lundbeck dominated these rankings—except the provision of high-quality products (for which UCB was judged 1st), and also being transparent in the funding of healthcare stakeholders (for which Eisai was ranked 1st). Just five US-headquartered companies ranked in the overall US top ten in 2017:
Two Swiss companies ranked in the overall US 2017 top ten:
Meanwhile, the biggest rises up the corporate-reputation rankings in the US were also made by non-US companies (two German and one Japanese):
So why do European and Japanese pharma companies do so well at corporate reputation in the USA? The patient-centricity agenda has been raised a notch in Europe in 2017 by the continuing work of the European Patients' Academy on Therapeutic Innovation (EUPATI), a project now managed by the European Patients' Forum (EPF). Together, these two organisations have been heavily promoting the need for patient engagement across the spectrum of pharma activities (and, specifically, in research and development). Most European pharma companies engage with EUPATI. Japanese pharma companies, too, have come to realise that their interests might be expanded through greater understanding of, and engagement with, patients and patient groups, and a number of Japanese companies have been raising their investments in this area. Writing in the 2017 US PatientView report, Eisai notes that: "Through socialization with patients and families, our employees can better understand the patient's condition and unmet needs, the obstacles they face, as well as possible remedies. Therefore, our employees around the world are encouraged to spend 1% of their total business hours interacting with patients." What next for 2018? In the meantime, however, now that the distraction of President Trump's offensive on drug pricing has subsidised, pharma companies have other important issues to consider. The Food and Drug Administration's 2017 commitment to place patients, carers, and advocates at the centre of the FDA regulatory process is a measure more radical than anything seen even in Europe. As a result, US-based companies could, across the board, be propelled into taking the question of patient centricity far more seriously. About this 2017 study and report
-End of press release- |