PUBLICATION DATE: THURSDAY, MAY 28th 2020

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

This is the 8th edition of 'The Corporate Reputation of Pharma - from the Perspective of Cancer Patient Groups'. The 2019 results are drawn from a survey of cancer patient groups, conducted November 2019 - February 2020.

About the 2019 survey of cancer patient groups

25% of 2019’s respondent cancer patient groups were umbrella patient groups, and/or covered most types of cancer. The remainder specialised in various types of cancer.

The 389 cancer patient groups came from 57 countries, with the following geographic remits: 68% had a national geographic remit; 11% an international remit; 11% regional (an area within one country); and 11% were local.

On cancer patient-group relationships with pharma

78% of the 389 cancer patient groups responding to the 2019 survey worked with at least one pharma company.

The 33 companies included for assessment in the 2019 cancer analyses (in alphabetical order):

* Celgene has been included as a separate entity in the 2019 results because the company’s acquisition by Bristol Myers Squibb was only completed in November 2019, and the ‘Corporate-Reputation’ survey is intended to reflect the views of patient groups throughout 2019.

PatientView also provides 2019 performance indicators on companies, as judged by respondent cancer patient groups from six different cancer specialties:

Blood cancers [58 blood-cancer patient groups examine 19 companies that produce blood-cancer treatments].
Breast cancer [75 breast-cancer patient groups examine 20 companies].
Lung cancer [29 patient groups examine 13 companies].
Ovarian cancer [22 patient groups examine 6 companies].
Prostate cancer [24 patient groups examine 6 companies]. And ...
Rare cancers [25 patient groups examine 5 companies].

The 21 companies are listed in the table below.

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, the opinions of the 3 respondent China-based cancer patient groups may have been influenced by the epidemic. Announcements about Covid-19 by some pharma companies during January and February 2020, and reported in the US media, may have influenced the views of the 67 US cancer patient groups responding to the ‘Corporate-Reputation’ survey during its last two months.

What this report contains

Industry-wide analyses: The report examines the issues of importance to cancer patient groups, 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 cancer patient groups, classified in a 54-page Appendix according to the specialties of the respondent patient groups.

Individual company analyses: The 33 pharma companies are reviewed by 2019's 389 respondent cancer 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:

2019’s industry-wide ‘Corporate-Reputation’ cancer results can largely be explained by the scale of industry’s endeavour in each cancer therapy area—specifically, the range of treatments available—as perceived by the various types of cancer patient groups. Cancer patient groups specialising in the more well-established cancer therapy areas (such as blood, breast, or lung cancer) tend to score the pharma industry higher for corporate reputation.

For example, while 68% of 2019’s 29 respondent lung-cancer patient groups thought that the pharma industry had an “Excellent or “Good” corporate reputation, only 33% of 2019’s 24 respondent prostate-cancer patient groups said the same [see chart below].

The Panama-based Asociacion Nacional de Pacientes de Quimioterapia [National Association of Chemotherapy Patients] (ASONAPAQ):

“… que de un día para otro duplican y hasta triplican los precios.” [“… from one day to the next, they (that is, pharma) doubles, or almost trebles, the prices.”]

The corporate reputation of the pharmaceutical industry, 2019 v. 2018, according to 7 types of cancer patient groups (Percentage of respondent patient groups stating “Excellent” or “Good”)

On transparency: A few of 2019’s respondent cancer patient groups acknowledged the role that national pharmaceutical trades-bodies have played in setting transparency standards, alongside regulators. Pockets of best practice were separately mentioned by three respondent cancer patient groups (one from Australia, one from Bulgaria, and one from Finland). However, as in previous years (and in common with patient groups in non-cancer therapy areas), most of 2019’s respondent cancer patient groups rated the industry low for transparency—with only around one fifth calling the industry “Excellent” or “Good” at the three elements of transparency measured by the survey.

On pricing: Recent tremendous advances in oncology treatments have come with a high price tag. Treatments are often used in combination, multiplying the cost to patients for a course of treatment offering months of life. National Health Technology Assessment (HTA) authorities have found it difficult to demonstrate cost effectiveness, which has led to much negotiation over confidential discounts on a per-nation basis. Not surprisingly, only 10% of 2019’s respondent 389 cancer patient groups thought the pharmaceutical industry “Excellent” or “Good” at setting fair pricing policies. This percentage has been slowly sliding since 2013, when it stood at 16%. One of the key pricing issues highlighted by feedback from 2019’s respondent cancer patient groups is differential pricing systems for drugs, country to country—information about which should be in the public domain, say respondent cancer patient groups.

Key company findings:

Four major pharmaceutical companies continue to dominate the cancer league tables for 2019: Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche/Genentech.

Ranked 1st: Roche/Genentech was ranked overall 1st out of 33 companies for corporate reputation in 2019 by the 312 respondent cancer patient groups familiar with the company. In 2018, Roche was ranked 3rd out of 36 companies by the cancer patient groups familiar with it. Roche was also ranked 1st in 2019 for all 12 indicators of corporate reputation, among both patient groups that were familiar with the company, and those that worked with it.
Ranked 2nd: Novartis was ranked overall 2nd out of 33 companies for corporate reputation in 2019 by the 325 respondent cancer patient groups familiar with the company. In 2018, Novartis was ranked 2nd out of 36 companies by the cancer patient groups familiar with it.
Ranked 3rd: Pfizer was ranked overall 3rd out of 33 companies for corporate reputation in 2019 by the 306 respondent cancer patient groups familiar with the company. In 2018, Pfizer was ranked 4th out of 36 companies by the cancer patient groups familiar with it.
Ranked 4th: Janssen was ranked overall 4th out of 33 companies for corporate reputation in 2019 by the 215 cancer patient groups familiar with the company. In 2018, the company was ranked 1st out of 36 companies by the cancer patient groups familiar with it.

Other success stories in the cancer results

Daiichi Sankyo was first included in the cancer analyses in 2018, when the company was ranked 34th among patient groups familiar with it. In 2019, Daiichi rose 12 places, to reach overall 22nd.
Servier continued to see big improvements in its corporate reputation among cancer patient groups familiar with the company, rising from 28th position in 2017, to 17th in 2018, and, again, reaching overall 10th in 2019.
Takeda/Shire maintained a position in the cancer top ten in 2019, ranking overall 8th among cancer patient groups familiar with the company. In 2018, the company had seen a meteoric rise up the cancer Corporate-Reputation rankings, when it jumped 15 places from overall 20th in 2017 to overall 5th in 2018.

Comparing the 14 largest pharma companies (‘big pharma’), 2019 v. 2018

To enable peer-to-peer comparisons of the results, PatientView recalculates overall rankings for the 12 indicators of corporate reputation, including just the 14 largest, multinational, multi-therapy pharma companies. These ‘big-pharma’ results provide a different perspective on how the largest pharmaceutical companies fare for corporate reputation, enabling peer-to-peer analyses. Takeda/Shire was added to this listing in 2019 for the first time.

Companies ranking 1st for corporate reputation among six different types of cancer patient groups, 2019 (according to the respondent specialised cancer patient groups familiar with the company)

For further information on PatientView's latest publication: 'What 389 cancer patient groups think of 33 pharma companies in 2019?', please use the contact details at the top.

To download contents, list of tables and charts, and sample materials, please click below:

https://bit.ly/3bM7BLl

Indiviudal reports within this canc er package can be purchased separately

~END OF NOTIFICATION~