PatientView PRESS RELEASE: What cancer patient groups say about Pharma, 2016
No Images? Click here
The Corporate Reputation of Pharma Companies, 2016: from the Perspective of 251 Cancer Patient Groups - 3rd edition
- Published Friday, June 9th 2017
- Part of a series of reports offered by PatientView
- Format is PDF (157 pages)
- 'These results are derived from a global review of pharma’s corporate reputation (conducted November 2016 to early-February 2017).
- The cancer results form the opinions of 251 patient groups with an interest in cancer: 4 came from Africa; 16 from Asia; 157 from Europe (of which 27 were based in Eastern Europe); 20 came from Latin America; 5 from the Middle East; 48 came from North America (12 from Canada, and 36 from the USA). One cancer patient group did not specify its country headquarters.
- 28 pharma companies are included in this 2016 cancer analysis: • Allergan (new to the cancer analysis) • Amgen • Astellas Pharma • AstraZeneca • Bayer • Biogen • Boehringer Ingelheim • Bristol-Myers Squibb • Celgene • Eisai • Eli Lilly (Lilly) • Ferring • Gilead Sciences • GSK • Ipsen • Janssen • LEO Pharma • Merck & Co • Merck KGaA • Novartis • Pfizer • Roche • Sandoz • Sanofi • Shire (now includes Baxalta) • Takeda and • Teva. The 28 companies were chosen because a minimum of 19 cancer patient groups declared familiarity with them.
THE QUESTIONNAIRE
Industry-wide questions:
- How the pharma industry’s corporate reputation compares with that of other healthcare industries.
- How the pharma industry’s corporate reputation has changed over the past five years.
- How good or bad the pharma industry is at various activities of relevance to patients and patient groups.
7 indicators show the corporate reputation of individual pharma companies:
- Patient centricity.
- Information for patients.
- Patient safety.
- Usefulness of products.
- Transparency.
- Integrity.
- Patient-group relationships (new for 2016).
INDUSTRY-WIDE FINDINGS
- In 2016, as many as 49% of cancer patient groups thought that the pharma industry had an “Excellent” or “Good” corporate reputation, compared with just 38% of patient groups from all therapy areas.
- The 2016 results represent pharma's highest positive approval rating among cancer patient groups since 2013.
- Cancer patient groups ranked the pharma industry 3rd in 2016 among eight healthcare-industry sectors for having an “Excellent” or “Good” corporate reputation. By contrast, patient groups from all geographic areas ranked pharma 5th in 2016.
- Cancer patient groups were also positive about the industry's levels of innovation, and about its ability to create high-quality cancer products [see charts, below], with almost three quarters of the 251 cancer patient groups describing pharma as “Excellent” or “Good” at these two activities in 2016.
- However, the pharmaceutical industry was marked down by cancer patient groups for its other activities—most notably, fair pricing. Just 7% of the 251 cancer patient groups called pharma “Excellent” or “Good” at this activity in 2016. When respondent cancer patient groups were asked to single out the one activity most likely to help the pharma industry improve its corporate reputation, fair pricing came top.
% of respondent cancer patient groups in 2016 describing pharma as “Excellent” or “Good” at having high-quality products
% of respondent cancer patient groups describing pharma as “Excellent” or “Good” at having fair pricing policies
PHARMA COMPANIES and CANCER PATIENT GROUPS
- The company with which cancer patient groups were most familiar in 2016 was Novartis (79% of respondent cancer patient groups were familiar with the company), followed by Roche (75%), and Pfizer (72%).
Levels of familiarity among cancer patient groups with the 28 featured pharma companies, 2016. % of respondent cancer patient groups saying that they were familiar with the company
INDIVIDUAL COMPANY FINDINGS—CANCER
- Roche ranked overall 1st in 2016 for corporate reputation among the 188 respondent cancer patient groups familiar with the company.
- Roche also ranked 1st in 2016 for six of the seven indicators of corporate reputation. The exception was patient-group relations, for which it ranked 2nd.
- Novartis was ranked 1st in 2016 for its patient-group relationships by the 199 respondent cancer patient groups familiar with the company.
HIGHS and LOWS—CANCER
If the cancer corporate-reputation results for 2016 (28 pharma companies analysed) are compared with those of 2015 (31 pharma companies analysed) using a standardised index—the Patient Corporate Reputation Index (PCRI)—findings show the biggest jumps up the cancer rankings were for:
Eisai, which ranked 16th overall in 2016 (compared with 29th in 2015).
Bristol-Myers Squibb, which ranked 7th overall in 2016 (compared with 16th in 2015).
Shire, which ranked 17th overall in 2016 (compared with 27th in 2015).
CONTENTS, TABLES and CHARTS—CANCER
Contents
- Executive summary.
- Cancer patient-group relationships with
pharma. - Industry-wide findings from cancer patient groups.
- Cancer patient groups on improving
corporate reputation. - Rankings of the 28 pharma companies among cancer patient groups FAMILIAR with them.
- Positioning of the 16 pharma companies among PARTNER cancer patient groups.
- Profiles of the 28 pharma companies.
- Comments from respondent cancer patient groups.
- Profile of the 251 respondent cancer patient groups.
Company profiles:
- Rankings among cancer patient groups for the indicators of corporate reputation among patient groups familiar with the company, and which work or partner with the company, 2016.
- The company's average scores for the 7 indicators of corporate reputation, 2016 versus 2015.
- The company’s performance for the 7 indicators of corporate reputation, 2016.
- The company’s rankings among patient groups for the indicators of corporate reputation, 2016: cancer versus therapy wide; familiar with versus worked with.
- Percentage of the patient groups that worked with the company—but which also worked with other companies, 2016.
- How the company did at corporate reputation in different countries, compared with its cancer average, 2016.
For more information about this cancer analysis, please use contact details below.
