PUBLICATION DATE: - Monday, 6th November 2017
CONTACT: ALEXANDRA WYKE - EMAIL: alexwyke@patient-view.com
- Mobile/cell: 0044-7960-855-019
Includes the views of patient groups specialising in dementia, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's, and pain.
The 21 companies analysed AbbVie I Allergan I AstraZeneca I Bayer I Biogen I Boehringer Ingelheim I Bristol-Myers Squibb I Eisai I Eli Lilly I Grünenthal I GSK I Janssen I Lundbeck I Merck & Co I Merck KGaA I Novartis I Pfizer I Roche I Sanofi I Teva I UCB. - The 21 companies were chosen because a minimum of 25 patient groups with an interest in neurological conditions declared familiarity with them.
KEY FINDINGS - Only 28.2% of the 272 neurological patient groups replying to the 2016 survey thought that pharma had an "Excellent" or "Good" corporate reputation—lower than figures reported since 2013.
- In 2016, respondent neurological patient groups ranked the pharma industry 5th out of 8 healthcare-industry
sectors for corporate reputation—ahead of generics, not-profit health insurers and for-profit health insurers.
- More than half of the 272 neurological patient groups thought the pharma industry was "Excellent" or "Good" at making high-quality useful products.
- Less than half of the 272 neurological patient groups thought the industry "Excellent" or "Good" at a range of other activities—including: being innovative; ensuring patient safety; providing high-quality patient information; providing access to clinical trials; integrity; having ethical marketing practices; or providing services 'beyond the pill'. Only 7% thought the industry "Excellent" or "Good" at fair pricing policies.
FINDINGS: THE CORPORATE REPUTATION OF 21 PHARMA COMPANIES—WHAT NEUROLOGICAL PATIENT GROUPS SAID IN 2016
The seven indicators of corporate reputation (from the patient-group perspective): - Patient centricity
- Patient information
- Patient safety
- Usefulness of
products
- Transparency
- Integrity
- Patient-group relationships
- UCB ranked overall 1st out of 21 pharma companies for corporate reputation in 2016, and 1st for six of the seven indicators of corporate reputation (the exception was patient safety, for which UCB ranked 2nd).
- AbbVie ranked overall 2nd out of 21 pharma companies for corporate reputation in
2016.
- Lundbeck ranked overall 3rd out of 21 pharma companies for corporate reputation in 2016, and 1st for one of the seven indicators of corporate reputation: patient safety.
FINDINGS: PHARMA-COMPANY SECTOR ANALYSIS Which companies ranked 1st among their peers in five different neurological therapy areas? To give companies (and the respondent patient groups reading the report) an idea of company performance at corporate reputation among like-with-like peers, PatientView has provided, for the first time, an indication of how well each pharma company performed at
corporate reputation when compared with the other pharma companies that function in the same specialist sector. The five therapy areas examined are: dementia; epilepsy; multiple sclerosis; Parkinson's; and pain.
DEMENTIA: 2016 average score across the seven indicators of corporate reputation—from 35 patient groups specialising in dementia, and familiar with the company [number of patient groups]
EPILEPSY: 2016 average score across the seven indicators of corporate reputation—from 27 patient groups specialising in epilepsy, and familiar with the company [number of patient groups]
MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS: 2016 average score across the seven indicators of corporate reputation—from 54 patient groups specialising in multiple sclerosis, and familiar with the company [number of patient groups]
PAIN: 2016 average score across the seven indicators of corporate reputation—from 37 patient groups specialising in pain (including fibromyalgia and headache), and familiar with the company [number of patient groups]
PARKINSON'S: 2016 average score across the seven indicators of corporate reputation—from 44 patient groups specialising in Parkinson’s disease, and familiar with the company [number of patient groups]
FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THIS REPORT
What is corporate reputation? In this survey, corporate reputation is defined for patient groups: "Are companies meeting the expectations of the relevant patient groups?"
In addition, the report features ... - Comments made by 145 neurological patient groups from around the world on how pharma companies can improve their corporate reputation.
- How pharma companies performed worldwide, 2016 v. 2015—according to neurological patient groups, and as measured by PatientView’s PCRI.
- Average scores and rankings across the seven indicators of corporate reputation from 35 patient groups specialising in dementia, and familiar with the company, 2016.
- Average scores and rankings across the seven indicators of corporate reputation from 27
patient groups specialising in epilepsy, and familiar with the company, 2016.
- Average scores and rankings across the seven indicators of corporate reputation from 54 patient groups specialising in multiple sclerosis, and familiar with the company, 2016.
- Average scores and rankings across the seven indicators of corporate reputation from 37 patient groups specialising in pain, and familiar with the company, 2016.
- Average scores and rankings across the seven indicators of corporate reputation from
44 patient groups specialising in Parkinson’s disease, and familiar with the company, 2016.
- How do respondent neurological patient groups rate the corporate reputation of eight healthcare sectors, 2016 v. 2015?
- How do respondent neurological patient groups rate the corporate reputation of pharma over time, 2013-2016?
- What do neurological patient groups responding in 2016 believe has happened to the corporate reputation of pharma over the past five years?
- What do respondent neurological patient groups say in 2016 about the activities of pharma (all of which influence corporate standing with patients and patient groups)? [Chart and table.]
- If a pharma company wishes to improve its corporate reputation among the patients and patient groups that have an interest in neurological conditions, which single strategy would be MOST IMPORTANT for the company to follow? 2014-2016.
- Levels of familiarity among neurological patient groups with the 21 pharma companies.
- With how many neurological patient groups do each of the 21 pharma companies work?
- Rankings of individual pharma companies among neurological patient groups familiar with the company, 2016 versus 2015: indicators 1-7; final overall rankings, A-Z; final overall rankings, high to low.
- How pharma companies are positioned among the patient groups with which they partner, 2016: indicators 1-7; final overall rankings, A-Z; final overall rankings, high to low.
Charts and tables for each of the 21 companies: - How many respondent neurological patient groups were familiar with the company?
- How many of these respondent neurological patient groups said that they worked with the company?
- The other companies with which the neurological patient
groups familiar with the company also worked.
- The company’s overall scores for the seven indicators of corporate reputation among neurological patient groups familiar with the company, and among those which worked with the company.
- In a brief snapshot, how well did the company do at corporate reputation from a neurological patient-group perspective? In other words: in which TIER of the corporate-reputation league table (upper, middle, or lower) does the company sit for each indicator of corporate reputation among neurological patient groups familiar with the company?
- Country headquarters of the neurological patient groups familiar with the company, % of total.
- Specialties of the neurological patient groups familiar with the company, % of total.
- Geographic remit of the neurological patient groups familiar with the company, % of total.
- The company’s rankings for the seven indicators of corporate reputation among neurological patient groups familiar with the company; and the company’s
positionings for the seven indicators among neurological patient groups which work with the company; both 2016 v. 2015.
- The company’s overall ranking for corporate reputation among 21 companies, according to neurological patient groups familiar with the company.
- The company’s overall positioning for corporate reputation among 17 of the 21 companies, according to neurological patient groups that work with the company.
- How patient groups from a specific neurological specialty rate the company for
corporate reputation, when compared with its average among all neurological patient groups familiar with the company.
|