--The views of 1,850 patient groups--

EMBARGOED PRESS RELEASE: 6am GMT, TUESDAY, APRIL 21st 2020

To obtain a copy opf the report please send request to email below

~ Contact: Alex Wyke ~ Tel: +44-(0)1547-520-96 ~ Email: report@patient-view.com

A note about COVID-19

COVID-19 should have little impact on the results of the PatientView 2019 ‘Corporate-Reputation’ study, due to the timing of the survey (November 2019 to February 2020―largely before the crisis became global). Only the opinions of the 15 respondent China-based patient groups may have been influenced by the epidemic.

However, COVID-19 is already creating greater public awareness of the pharmaceutical industry. On the one hand, the industry’s scientific abilities are being applauded. On the other hand, drug companies have come under pressure to reduce prices during the pandemic. The 2019 ‘Corporate-Reputation’ results can therefore serve as a platform to assist pharma in its corporate-reputation strategies, in the context of the COVID-19 crisis and thereafter―at a time when the reputation of the pharmaceutical industry is very much in the public eye.

ABOUT THE SURVEY AND THE ANALYSES

I. Results of a survey of 1,850 patient groups

Survey conducted: November 2019 - February 2020.
Survey conducted in 20 languages: Danish | Dutch | English | Finnish | French | German | Greek | Hungarian | Italian | Japanese | Korean | Norwegian | Portuguese | Polish | Russian | Spanish | Swedish | Simplified Chinese | Traditional Chinese | Turkish.
Industry-wide analyses: The pharma industry as a whole assessed at a wide range of activities important to patients and patient groups; its performance at corporate reputation compared with that of other healthcare sectors.
Company analyses: 48 pharma companies analysed for performance at 12 indicators of corporate reputation by patient groups familiar with the company, and by patient groups that work or partner with the company.

II. Best-practice case studies from eight leading pharma companies

The eight contributing pharmaceutical companies are:

Boehringer Ingelheim
Gilead Sciences
Ipsen
Lundbeck (US division)
Merck KGaA/EMD Serono
Novartis
Pfizer
ViiV Healthcare

These eight companies tell their own stories about their patient-centric strategies, and what they were doing in 2019 (and have planned for 2020) to improve their corporate reputation with patients and patient groups.

London, April 21st, 2020

HOW DID INDUSTRY PERFORM?

Patient-group attitudes towards the pharma industry as a whole were more positive in 2019 than in any of the previous years this survey has been undertaken. Patient groups rated the pharmaceutical industry 1st for corporate reputation out of nine healthcare sectors (a first for the pharma industry).

Chart 1. The corporate reputation of the pharmaceutical industry, 2019 v. 2018—compared with that of other healthcare sectors (Percentage of respondent patient groups stating “Excellent” or “Good”)

46% of 2019’s respondent patient groups stated that the pharmaceutical industry had an “Excellent” or “Good” corporate reputation, ranking pharma 1st out of nine healthcare sectors for corporate reputation.

Chart 2. The corporate reputation of the pharmaceutical industry, 2011-2019 (Percentage of respondent patient groups stating “Excellent” or “Good”)

However, patient group attitudes do vary worldwide

The pharma industry’s overall corporate reputation was highest in 2019 among patient groups in Greece, Latin-American countries, Turkey, China, and Poland. By contrast, only 13% of 2019’s respondent patient groups from Ireland described the industry as having an “Excellent” or “Good” corporate reputation [see Chart 3].
The largest improvements in pharma’s corporate reputation, 2018 to 2019, were seen in Greece, Latin-American countries, Portugal, and Canada. By contrast, respondent patient groups from Ireland reported the industry’s corporate reputation to be falling, 2018 to 2019 [see Chart 4].

Chart 3. The corporate reputation of the pharmaceutical industry, 2019—by country (Percentage of respondent patient groups stating “Excellent” or “Good”) [Figure in brackets equals number of respondent patient groups]

Chart 4. The corporate reputation of the pharmaceutical industry, 2019 v. 2018—by country (Percentage change by respondent patient groups stating “Excellent” or “Good”) [Figure in brackets equals number of respondent patient groups]

What patient groups say

“Companies have improved but much more focus needs to be put on patient education through interactions with patient groups.” — International autoimmune patient group, USA

"Das Ansehen der Pharmaindustrie hängt v.a. von den Preisen für die von ihnen angebotenen Medikamente ab." (The reputation of the pharmaceutical industry depends primarily on the prices for the medications they market.) — National rare-disease patient group, Switzerland

"La reputazione aziendale aumenterebbe se la partnership tra associazioni e aziende venisse percepita da queste ultime non è una semplice somma di azioni, ma come un valore aggiunto in termini di effetto ed impatto sui beneficiari delle attività." (The company reputation would increase if the partnership between associations and companies was sensed by the latter. It is not a simple sum of the actions, but added value in terms of effect and impact on the beneficiaries of the activity.) — International public-health organisation, Italy

2019’s respondent patient groups also stated that the pharma industry's performance at activities of importance to patients had mostly improvedsince 2018 [see Chart 5].

Chart 5. How good or bad the pharmaceutical industry was in 2019 (v. in 2018) at carrying out specific activities—all of which influence the industry’s corporate standing with patients and patient groups (Percentage of respondent patient groups stating “Excellent” or “Good”)

2019’s respondent patient groups clearly felt that the pharmaceutical industry, despite having made improvements, still has scope to do better, particularly in the areas of: ● transparency; ● patient engagement in R&D; and ● fair pricing policies [see Chart 6].

Less than one fifth of 2019’s respondent patient groups thought the pharmaceutical industry “Excellent” or “Good” at transparency (whether transparency in its pricing of products, in the sharing of its clinical data, or in its funding of external stakeholders).
Less than one fifth of 2019’s respondent patient groups considered the pharmaceutical industry “Excellent” or “Good” at patient engagement in R&D (despite regular calls throughout 2019 by patient organisations and regulators for the further involvement of patients in this core pharma activity).
Only 10% of 2019’s respondent patient groups believed the pharmaceutical industry to be “Excellent” or “Good” at having fair pricing policies.

Chart 6. How good or bad the pharmaceutical industry was in 2019 at carrying out specific activities—compared with previous years (Percentage of respondent patient groups stating “Excellent” or “Good”)

2019’s survey was the first in which PatientView asked respondent patient groups about the effectiveness of the pharma industry in actively helping patients gain access to medicines [see Chart 7].

Only 26% of 2019’s respondent patient groups stated that the industry was “Excellent” or “Good” at ensuring patient access to medicines. The per-country results to this question varied widely, however. As many as 65% of the respondent Serbian patient groups believed the pharma industry to be “Excellent” or “Good” at ensuring patient access to medicines, while only 8% of respondent patient groups from the Netherlands said the same.

Chart 7. Percentage of respondent patient groups stating that the pharmaceutical industry was “Excellent” or “Good” at ensuring patient access to medicines, 2019—by country [Figure in brackets equals number of respondent patient groups]

HOW DID COMPANIES PERFORM?

* Celgene was included as a separate entity in the 2019 survey, as the company’s acquisition by Bristol Myers Squibb was only completed in November 2019, and the survey is intended to reflect the views of patient groups throughout the course of 2019.

The ‘Corporate-Reputation’ rankings in 2019, out of 48 companies, as assessed by patient groups familiar with the company

The concept of ‘familiarity’ is defined in the questionnaire as: “Feeling knowledgeable enough about the company to be able to comment on its activities and products.”

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

1st: ViiV Healthcare. In 2019, ViiV Healthcare ranked overall 1st for corporate reputation, according to the 205 respondent patient groups claiming familiarity with the company. ViiV has retained a 1st-place position since 2013, when the company was first included in the PatientView ‘Corporate-Reputation’ survey.

2nd: Roche. In 2019, Roche (represented by Chugai in Japan, and by Genentech in the US) ranked overall 2nd for corporate reputation, according to the 1,155 patient groups claiming familiarity with it; in 2018, Roche was ranked 6th by patient groups familiar with it. Such a rise in the rankings is particularly impressive for any large, multinational, multi-therapy company. Roche’s 2019 overall ranking is the highest achieved by the company in the nine years that PatientView has been running the ‘Corporate-Reputation’ survey.

3rd: AbbVie. In 2019, AbbVie was ranked overall 3rd for corporate reputation, according to the 708 patient groups claiming familiarity with it (up from overall 5th in 2018, when the company was negatively affected by the loss of patent on its leading product, Humira, in Europe). AbbVie’s corporate reputation appears to have recovered from the company’s patent-loss setback, at least from the perspective of the patient groups commenting on the company.

Chart 8. Overall rankings of individual pharma companies among patient groups familiar with the company, 2019 v. 2018—ordered high to low

A number of companies rose significantly up the rankings, 2018-2019

AstraZeneca made the largest jump in overall rankings for corporate reputation. In 2019, the company ranked 13th out of 48 companies, according to the 805 patient groups familiar with it—an increase of 16 places on AstraZeneca’s 2018 rank of 29th.

CSL Behring rose 15 places in the ‘Corporate-Reputation’ rankings. The 226 patient groups familiar with CSL Behring ranked the company overall 17th in 2019, compared with 32nd in 2018.

Steady climbers

Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, and Servier continued to sustain the slow, but steady, annual climb in overall rankings made by these companies during the last few years.

Rankings among the 14 biggest pharma companies: those with the “Best” corporate reputation in 2019 v. 2018, as assessed by patient groups familiar with the company

Setting out the rankings of only the 14 largest multinational pharma companies (calculated by re-ranking the 14 companies for each of the 12 indicators, as determined by the patient groups familiar with them) provides a different perspective on how these largest pharmaceutical companies fare for corporate reputation against what they see as their own corporate peers. By this assessment ...

Chart 9: The rankings of 14 ‘big-pharma’ companies at corporate reputation (among patient groups familiar with the companies), 2019 v. 2018—ordered highest to lowest

Roche emerged as having the best overall corporate reputation (as judged by patient groups familiar with the company) among the 14 major peers in 2019.
AbbVie ranked overall 2nd (according to patient groups familiar with the company) among the ‘big 14’ in 2019.
Novartis ranked overall 3rd for corporate reputation among the 14 major peers in 2019 (again, judged by patient groups familiar with the company).

PROFILE OF 2019’s RESPONDENT PATIENT GROUPS

1,850 respondent patient groups.
- From 95 countries.
- Covering 124 medical specialties.
- 62% are national patient groups. And ...
- 8% are international patient groups.
Patient-group partnerships with industry:
- 1,234 of the 1,850 respondent patient groups (67%) worked or partnered with at least one pharma company.

The geographic spread of 2019’s respondent patient groups (Respondent patient groups were headquartered in the countries coloured darker green)

Geographic remit of 2019’s respondent patient groups

Key therapy areas of 2019’s respondent patient groups

For further information on this Global report, please use contact details at the head of the press release

~END OF PRESS RELEASE~