THE CORPORATE REPUTATION OF THE PHARMA INDUSTRY IN 2015 — THE PERSPECTIVE OF PATIENT GROUPS IN THE USA (4th edition)

Report published by PatientView

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: 
• Thursday, March 24th, 2016

About this report

London, March 24th, 2016. This report is based on the findings of a PatientView November 2015-January 2016 survey exploring the views of 106 patient groups based in the USA, focusing on differing medical specialties. The report provides feedback on the corporate reputation of the US pharma industry during 2015, as well as the performance of 28 pharma companies for six key indicators that influence corporate reputation. Results are compared with those of the previous three 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.

The report also offers, as case studies, survey responses from two US companies, Janssen and Pfizer. The two companies explain what they are doing on the subject of global patient centricity, and comment about their relationships with patient groups. 

The six indicators of corporate reputation:

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

The 28 companies analysed:

AbbVie I Allergan I Amgen I Astellas Pharma I AstraZeneca I Bayer I Biogen Idec I Boehringer Ingelheim I Bristol-Myers Squibb I Celgene I Eisai I Eli Lilly (Lilly) I Gilead Sciences I  GSK I Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson I Lundbeck I Mallinckrodt I Merck & Co I Novartis I Novo Nordisk I Pfizer I Roche I Sandoz I Sanofi I Shire I Takeda I Teva I UCB I Valeant

“Most would say that profit trumps all. In pharma, this is a serious ethical problem. Cost matters above all else, especially in the US, which has the highest cost for pharma products. If cost is too high, all else is irrelevant.”

—Global (US-based) patient group specialising in diabetes

"As new drugs are approved and competition increases in hemophilia, the companies have had to step up their game, and be more attuned to the patients’ needs.”

—Regional (US-based) patient group specialising in hemophilia

INDUSTRY-WIDE FINDINGS

As with the findings of the global survey (published March 10th), patient groups in the US were more positive about pharma in 2015 than in previous years. Even so the approval ratings by US patient groups remain significantly below those given pharma by patient groups elsewhere in the world. Only 35.6% of the 106 respondent US patient groups stated that pharma's corporate reputation in 2015 was "Excellent" or "Good".  The equivalent figure for pharma worldwide from patient groups around the world was 44.7%. US patient groups ranked pharma 6th out of 8 healthcare-industry sectors for corporate reputation, ahead of for-profit and not-for-profit insurers. 

How do you think your organisation’s members (or the people you represent) would rate the corporate reputation of the following healthcare sectors in 2015? % of US patient groups respondent in 2015 stating “Excellent” or “Good”, compared with US patient groups respondent in 2014 stating “Excellent” or “Good” and patient groups worldwide respondent in 2015 stating “Excellent” or “Good”

The main reason why US patient groups held slightly more positive views of pharma in 2015 than in previous years was that they were more impressed in 2015 by the industry's ability to produce high-quality, useful products. Two further contributory factors included:

• As many as 70% of US patient groups stated that the pharma industry as a whole was “Excellent” or “Good” at ensuring patient safety—a higher percentage than elsewhere in the world, apart from Canada (79% of Canadian patient groups stated the same).
• Nearly half—47%—of US patient groups stated that the pharma industry as a whole was “Excellent” or “Good” at being philanthropic. 

BUT ...
like patient groups worldwide, those in the US are highly critical of pharma's pricing practices, and call for companies to improve in this subject area.

When asked: If a pharma company wishes to improve its corporate reputation with patients and patient groups, which single strategy from the list below do you think would be the MOST IMPORTANT for the company to follow?

As many as 40% of US patient groups stated that companies should adopt fair pricing policies, and not make unfair profits—a significantly higher percentage than the 30% of US patient groups in 2014  which said the same.

Percentage of patient groups that stated that the SINGLE most important strategy for a pharma company to improve its reputation is to have fairer pricing policies

HOW COMPANIES PERFORMED FOR CORPORATE REPUTATION IN THE US IN 2015 

Out of the 28 companies assessed for corporate reputation by US patient groups in 2015...

• Danish company Lundbeck is ranked overall number 1 in the US in 2015.
• US-based AbbVie is 2nd.
• Japan-based Eisai is 3rd.
• US-based Pfizer is 4th.
• US-based Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson is 5th.
• Israel-based Teva is 6th.
• US-based Gilead Sciences is 7th.
• Germany-based Bayer is 8th.
• US-based Celgene is 9th.
• and US-based Lilly is 10th.

(Note that in the previous year's US analysis, that of 2014, only 11 companies were examined.) 

Companies ranked according to the status of their corporate reputation -from the perspective of 106 US patient groups

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

Extract of Pfizer's response to PatientView's survey:

“Pfizer expanded teams and resources dedicated to driving patient centricity in 2016 and beyond. Leaders across Pfizer are setting and reinforcing the expectation that patient preferences and experiences should be included more systematically in our philosophies and practices. In this way, we can help ensure that we more fully execute on our purpose of innovating to significantly improve peoples’ lives. ”

Extract of Janssen's response to PatientView's survey: 

"In 2016 we will continue to define and implement our Patient Engagement Strategy across Janssen in order to truly unlock the power of patients by gaining direct patient insights to drive better outcomes. Our goal is to ensure that the perspective of patients and patient advocates is effectively and efficiently incorporated into all business processes to ensure optimal development, delivery and access to therapies. "

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.