PUBLICATION DATE: MONDAY, JULY 13th 2020

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

This is the 5th edition of 'The Corporate Reputation of Pharma - from the Perspective of Respiratory-Conditions Patient Groups'. These 2019 results are drawn from a survey of respiratory-conditions patient groups, conducted November 2019 - February 2020.

About the 2019 survey of respiratory-conditions patient groups

2019’s 91 respondent respiratory-conditions patient groups were headquartered in 30 different countries.
The 91 respiratory-conditions patient groups had the following geographic remits: 3% an international remit; 63% a national remit; 19% regional (within one country); and 13% local.

On the relationships that respiratory-conditions patient groups had with pharma

79% of the 91 respiratory-conditions patient groups responding to the 2019 survey worked with at least one pharma company.

The 13 companies included for assessment in the 2019 respiratory-conditions 'Corporate-Reputation' 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, early announcements about Covid-19 by some pharma companies (during January and February 2020) may have influenced the views of respiratory-conditions patient groups responding to the ‘Corporate-Reputation’ survey during those last two months of the survey.

What this report contains

Industry-wide analyses: The 2019 respiratory-conditions 'Corporate-Reputation' report examines the issues of importance to patient groups specialising in respiratory conditions, 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 respiratory-conditions patient groups [found in Appendix I], organised according to the country headquarters of the respondent patient groups.

Individual company analyses: The 13 pharma companies are reviewed by 2019’s 91 respondent respiratory-conditions 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

The different types of respiratory-conditions patient groups varied considerably in their views on pharma

Although the 91 respondent respiratory-conditions patient groups reported an improvement in the pharmaceutical industry's corporate reputation in 2019, the various different types of respiratory-conditions patient groups held diverse opinions on the subject. While 77% of 2019’s 18 respondent pulmonary-fibrosis patient groups thought the pharma industry had an “Excellent” or “Good” corporate reputation, only 33% of 2019’s respondent pulmonary-hypertension patient groups said the same [see chart below].

The varied attitudes of respiratory-conditions patient groups can, in part, be explained by whether they perceive the pharmaceutical industry’s commitment to innovation and provision of drug treatments to be effective in their specific respiratory specialties.

For example, the Spain-based Asociación Nacional de Hipertension Pulmonar [National Association of Pulmonary Hypertension] called for: “Mayor investigacion para medicamentos que puedan llegar a curar a los pacientes.” [ “More research into drugs which could result in a cure for patients.”]

The corporate reputation of the pharmaceutical industry, 2015-2019 (Percentage of respondent respiratory-conditions patient groups stating “Excellent” or “Good”)

The corporate reputation of the pharmaceutical industry, 2019—according to the different types of respiratory-conditions patient groups (Percentage of respondent respiratory-conditions patient groups stating “Excellent” or “Good”)

On innovation and drug treatments

Since 2016, respiratory-conditions patient groups as a whole have taken a more negative view of industry’s ability to innovate and produce high-quality products of benefit to patients [see charts below].

For 2019:

45% of the 91 respondent respiratory-conditions patient groups rated the pharmaceutical industry as “Excellent” or “Good” at innovation—compared with a high of 62% in 2016.
52% of the 91 respondent respiratory-conditions patient groups described the industry as “Excellent” or “Good” at providing high-quality products—compared with a high of 77% in 2016.

Percentage of respondent respiratory-conditions patient groups stating that the pharma industry was “Excellent” or “Good” at innovation and making high-quality products, 2015-2019

Looking at the equivalent numbers for the various types of respiratory-conditions patient groups: cystic-fibrosis, COPD, and pulmonary-fibrosis patient groups were most enthusiastic about the pharma industry’s innovatory skills, as well as its ability to produce treatments of benefits to patients. The most negative of the respiratory-conditions patient groups on these two issues were those specialising in pulmonary hypertension.

The varied different types of 2019's respondent respiratory-conditions patient groups shared a common viewpoint on one subject area, however—the pharma industry's pricing policies. The vast majority were negative on pharma's performance at this topic. Only 9% of the 91 respondent respiratory-conditions patient groups believed the pharma industry to be “Excellent” or “Good” at having fair pricing policies. Just 14% thought pharma transparent in its pricing policies.

Key company findings

Boehringer Ingelheim was ranked overall 1st out of 13 companies for corporate reputation in 2019 by the 60 respondent respiratory-conditions patient groups familiar with the company. Boehringer was also ranked 1st for 11 of the 12 indicators of corporate reputation. The exception was transparency in the funding of external stakeholders, for which Boehringer was ranked 2nd out of 13 companies.

GSK was ranked overall 2nd out of 13 companies for corporate reputation in 2019 by the 61 respondent respiratory-conditions patient groups familiar with the company. GSK was ranked 1st for one of the 12 indicators of corporate reputation: transparency in the funding of external stakeholders.

AstraZeneca was ranked overall joint 3rd out of 13 companies for corporate reputation in 2019 by the 51 respondent respiratory-conditions patient groups familiar with the company—a jump of four places over AstraZeneca's 2018 overall ranking for respiratory conditions. AstraZeneca was ranked overall 1st in 2019 out of 6 companies being judged for corporate reputation by partner respiratory-conditions patient groups.

Roche/Genentech was also ranked overall joint 3rd out of 13 companies for corporate reputation in 2019 by the 52 respondent respiratory-conditions patient groups familiar with the company.

Comparing the corporate reputation of just the 10 LARGEST pharma companies (‘big pharma’) working in the subject area of respiratory conditions, 2019 v. 2018

To enable peer-to-peer comparisons of the results, PatientView has also recalculated the overall respiratory-conditions rankings (across the 12 indicators of corporate reputation) for only 10 of the 14 largest, multinational, multi-therapy pharma companies included in these 2019 respiratory-conditions analyses. The 2019 ‘big-pharma’ respiratory-conditions results provide a different perspective on how the largest pharmaceutical companies fare for corporate reputation in this therapy area—enabling true peer-to-peer analyses.

For further information on PatientView's latest publication, ‘The Corporate Reputation of Pharma—from the Perspective of Respiratory-Conditions Patient Groups, 2019’, please use the contact details at the top.

To download the publication's contents, list of tables and charts, and sample materials, please click below:

LINK TO SAMPLE PAGES OF 2019's RESPIRATORY-CONDITIONS ANALYSIS

https://bit.ly/3guU4L1

~END OF NOTIFICATION~