THE CORPORATE REPUTATION OF THE PHARMA INDUSTRY IN 2015: THE PERSPECTIVE OF NEUROLOGICAL PATIENT GROUPS (3rd edition)

Report published by PatientView

April 2016

If you would like more information, or would like to get hold of this report, please use contact details below

• Contact: Alex Wyke

• Tel: +44-(0)1547-520-965

• Email: report@patient-view.com

• Website:http://www.patient-view.com

• Publication date: 
• Monday, April 25th, 2016

About this report

London, April 25th, 2016. This report is based on the findings of a PatientView November 2015-January 2016 survey exploring the views of 257 neurological  patient groups worldwide. The report provides feedback (from the perspective of neurological patient groups) on the corporate reputation of the pharma industry during 2015, as well as the performance of 29  pharma companies for six key indicators that influence corporate reputation. Results are compared with those of the previous years.

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.

For this 2015 series of ‘Corporate Reputation of Pharma’ reports, PatientView gave pharma companies the opportunity to tell their own story about their 2015 patient-centric strategies and activities in the field of patient-group relations. In each of the regional reports in the 2015 ‘Corporate Reputation’ series, we will feature, as case studies, the full responses of at least one company. In this report, one company is featured:  Teva. 

The six indicators of corporate reputation:

1. Patient-centricity.
2. Patient information.
3. Patient safety.
4. Useful products.
5. Transparency.  And ...
6. Integrity.

The 29 companies analysed:

AbbVie I Actavis I Allergan I Amgen I AstraZeneca I Bayer I Biogen Idec I Boehringer Ingelheim I Bristol-Myers Squibb I Eisai I Grünenthal I GSK I Ipsen I Janssen I Lundbeck I Merck & Co I Merck KGaA I Mylan I Novartis I Pfizer I Roche I Sandoz I Sanofi I Servier I Shire I Takeda I Teva I UCB.  

“I think that fair pricing is
very important, combined
with high quality. In other
words, a balance between
quality and price.”

—National Belgium-based patient
group specialising in a
neurological condition

“All eagerly awaiting a drug that improves dementia outcomes.”

—Local UK-based patient group specialising in a neurological condition

INDUSTRY-WIDE FINDINGS

The 257 neurological patient groups responding to the 2015 ‘Corporate Reputation of Pharma’ survey reported a significant improvement in the corporate reputation of the pharma industry when compared with 2014 (the global version of the 2015 survey produced the same finding for the industry from patient groups across the world).

42.6% of the 257 neurological patient groups 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 from 2014’s respondent neurological patient groups was 32.9%.

Neurological patient groups responding in 2015 ranked the pharma industry 6th out of 8 healthcare-industry sectors for corporate reputation—ahead of for-profit health insurers, and not-for-profit health insurers. In 2014, pharma was ranked 7th by neurological patient groups. However, in the global results for 2015, patient groups worldwide ranked pharma 5th.

21.9% of the neurological patient groups responding in 2015 believed that the corporate reputation of the pharma industry had improved over the previous five years—about the same as the equivalent 2014 finding of 20.6% of neurological patient groups saying this. 35.9% of 2015’s neurological patient groups said that the industry’s corporate reputation had declined over the previous five years—lower than the 48.1% of 2014’s neurological patient groups saying the same.

67% of the 257 neurological patient groups responding to the 2015 ‘Corporate Reputation of Pharma’ survey described the industry as “Excellent” or “Good” at the corporate-reputation indicator of providing high-quality products, of use to patients. The figure is a slight improvement for pharma on the 65% of neurological patient groups stating the same in 2014, though still lower than the global average of 72%. The equivalent  figure from hepatitis patient groups in 2015 is 81%.

The percentage of neurological patient groups stating that pharma in 2015 was “Excellent” or “Good” at providing HIGH-QUALITY, USEFUL PRODUCTS

BUT ...
neurological patient groups are critical of pharma for its poor performance at patient centricity, transparency, and fair pricing policies—and they call for companies to improve in these areas.

Only 20% of neurological patient groups responding in 2015 thought pharma “Excellent” or “Good” at having fair pricing policies. Across therapies, and around the world, pricing stands among the more divisive issues separating patient groups and pharma. However, the chart below shows that neurological patient groups are less concerned on the issue than their peers from other therapeutic areas.

The percentage of neurological patient groups stating that pharma in 2015 was “Excellent” or “Good” at HAVING FAIR PRICING POLICIES

HOW COMPANIES PERFORMED FOR CORPORATE REPUTATION IN 2015: NEUROLOGICAL 

2015 saw some movement in the overall rankings for individual pharma companies (as assessed by neurological patient groups).  Noteworthy are increases in rankings between 2015 (29 companies assessed) and 2014 (18 companies assessed) for:

• Pfizer  (up 4 places)
• AbbVie  (up 2 places)
• GSK  (up 2 places)
• Novartis  (up 2 places)
• UCB  (up 2 places)

However, Teva’s drop of 7 places between 2014 and 2015 may be due, in part, to the fact that 41.4% of the neurological patient groups commenting on the company in 2014 were located in the USA (where Teva has built up significant programmes for patients with MS). In 2015, however, only 23.8% of the neurological patient groups commenting on Teva were USA based.

What are your company’s plans for improving its PAG relations, its patient advocacy, or its patient centricity in 2016 (from your perspective)?

Extract from response from PatientView pharma survey 2015, by Teva:

"Teva understands that people are more than their illness, and meaningful partnerships with patient-advocacy organisations are about more than the disease. In 2016, Teva will continue to engage and empower the patient voice. By making conscious decisions and working in a meaningful way with patient and health advocates, Teva plans to work collaboratively to develop a deeper understanding of the individual reality experienced by people when they are ill. Furthermore, Teva will progress the development of well-managed, compliant and progressive partnerships with patient organisations globally. Working collaboratively with patient-advocacy groups to shape the future of Teva’s global patient-advocacy engagement, enabling sophisticated insights and identifying solutions to the global healthcare issues affecting people when they are ill.”

END OF STATEMENT

PatientView is a UK-based research organisation that consults closely with patient groups, and publicises the work of the patient-advocacy movement.