The Corporate Reputation of Pharma Companies, 2016: from the Perspective of 164 US Patient Groups (4th edition)
- Published Tuesday, 18th July 2017
- Part of a series of reports offered by PatientView
- Format is PDF (155 pages)
- These results are derived from a global review
of pharma’s corporate reputation (conducted November 2016 to early-February 2017).
- The results form the opinions of 164 US patient groups: 36 specialised in cancer; 22 in rare diseases; 16 in Parkinson's; 9 in mental health; and other specialties.
- 30 pharma companies are included in this 2016 US analysis: • AbbVie •
Allergan • Amgen • Astellas Pharma • AstraZeneca • Bayer • Biogen • Boehringer Ingelheim • Bristol-Myers Squibb • Celgene • Eisai • Eli Lilly (Lilly) • Gilead • GSK • Janssen • Lundbeck •
Merck & Co • Merck KGaA • Mylan • Novartis • Novo Nordisk • Pfizer • Roche • Sandoz • Sanofi • Shire • Takeda • Teva • UCB • Valeant.
The 30 companies were chosen because a minimum of 17 US patient groups declared familiarity with each one.
- In response to a survey of pharmaceutical companies, Eisai provided information on its patient centricity and relations with patient-advocacy groups during 2016-2017 in the USA.
Industry-wide questions: - How the pharma industry’s corporate reputation compares with that of other healthcare industries.
- How the pharma
industry’s corporate reputation has changed over the past five years.
- How good or bad the pharma industry is at various activities of relevance to patients and patient groups.
7 indicators show the corporate reputation of individual pharma companies: - Patient centricity.
- Information for patients.
- Patient safety.
- Usefulness of products.
- Transparency.
- Integrity.
- Patient-group relationships
(new for 2016).
- In 2016, only 29.2% of US patient groups thought that the pharma industry had an “Excellent” or “Good” corporate reputation (compared with 38% of patient groups worldwide).
- The 2016 result was the most negative rating from US patient groups since 2013.
- US patient groups ranked the pharma industry 6th in 2016 among eight healthcare-industry sectors for having an “Excellent” or “Good” corporate reputation. By contrast, patient groups from all geographic areas ranked pharma 5th in 2016.
- US patient groups were, however, more positive
about the industry's levels of innovation, and about its ability to provide high-quality information, provide access to clinical trials, work in partnership with patient groups and be philanthropic (when compared with patient organisations from 19 other geographic areas).
- However, the pharmaceutical industry was marked down by US patient groups for many of its other activities—most notably, for the ability of the pharma industry to provide services outside its business remit ('beyond the pill'), and for its ability to price its products fairly. Just 7% of the 164 US patient groups called pharma “Excellent” or “Good” at this latter activity in 2016. Only patient groups from Hungary, New Zealand, Germany, Ireland, and the Netherlands graded pharma lower on fair pricing.
% of respondent patient groups in 2016 from 20 different countries/regions describing pharma as “Excellent” or “Good” at providing services 'beyond the pill'
% of respondent patient groups in 2016 from 20 different countries/regions describing pharma as “Excellent” or “Good” at having fair pricing policies
PHARMA COMPANIES and US PATIENT GROUPS
- The company with which US patient groups were most familiar in 2016 was Pfizer (115 of the 164 respondent US patient groups were familiar with the company), followed by Merck & Co (102), and Novartis (93).
Levels of familiarity among US patient groups with the 30 featured pharma companies, 2016. Number of respondent US patient groups saying that they were familiar with the company
INDIVIDUAL COMPANY FINDINGS—USA
- Only three of the pharma companies ranked in the top ten for corporate reputation by US patient groups in 2016 were headquartered in the USA: AbbVie (which ranked 3rd); Pfizer (7th); and Gilead (8th).
- Denmark-headquartered Lundbeck ranked overall 1st
in 2016 for corporate reputation by the respondent US patient groups familiar with the company (the same ranking for Lundbeck as in 2015).
- Lundbeck also ranked 1st in 2016 for all seven indicators of corporate reputation.
- Belgium-headquartered UCB came 2nd overall; Japan-headquartered Eisai,
4th; Ireland-headquartered Shire, 5th; and Switzerland-headquartered Novartis, 6th. Switzerland-headquartered Roche, and Denmark-headquartered Novo Nordisk, were 9th and 10th respectively.
If the US corporate-reputation results for 2016 (30 pharma companies analysed) are compared with those of 2015 (28 pharma companies analysed) using a standardised index—the Patient Corporate Reputation Index (PCRI)—findings show the biggest jumps up the US rankings were for:
Pharma companies’ overall rankings—in PCRIs—among US patient groups familiar with each company, 2016 v. 2015: ordered according to the difference between the PCRI values for the two years (high to low)
- Roche saw the biggest leap up the US rankings over the two years. In 2015, the company ranked only 22nd for corporate reputation out of 28 companies; in 2016, it ranked 9th out of 30 companies.
- Shire,
too, jumped up the US rankings between the two years—from 18th out of 28 companies in 2015, to 5th out of 30 companies in 2016.
- Amgen
jumped from 24th out of 28 companies in 2015, to 13th out of 30 companies in 2016.
The results may be, in part, due to an anomaly in the survey methodology between the two years (164 US patient groups answered the survey in 2016, whereas, in 2015, 106 did). Nonetheless, this anomaly cannot provide the complete explanation for differences in rankings between the two years.
The Patient Corporate Reputation Index (PCRI) standardises PatientView’s ranking data to take into account the different numbers of companies included in
country/therapy analyses. The ranking is from 0 to 1, where 1 is the best (the highest) rank.
CONTENTS, TABLES and CHARTS—USA
Contents - Executive summary.
- US patient-group relationships with pharma.
- Industry-wide findings from US patient groups.
- US patient groups on improving corporate reputation.
- Rankings of the 30 pharma companies among US patient groups FAMILIAR with them.
- Positioning of the 30 pharma companies among US patient groups with which the companies PARTNER.
- Profiles of the 30 pharma companies.
- Appendices:
- Comments from respondent US patient groups.
- Profile of the 164 respondent US patient groups.
- What pharma companies were doing in the subject area of patient centricity in the USA, 2016-2017: Eisai.
Company profiles: - Number of US patient groups claiming familiarity with the company, 2016.
- Number of US patient groups saying they had a working
relationship with the company, 2016.
- Company’s average score for the seven indicators of corporate reputation among US patient groups familiar with the company, 2016 v. 2015.
- Company performance in 2015 for six indicators of corporate reputation among patient groups familiar with the company
- Company’s scores among US patient groups familiar with the company, and which worked with the company, for each of the seven indicators of corporate reputation, 2016.
- Company’s rankings among patient groups familiar with the company for the seven indicators of corporate reputation, 2016, familiar v. worked with, US v. worldwide.
- Company’s best indicators among US patient groups familiar with the company, 2016.
- Company’s Patient Corporate Reputation Index (PCRI), US: 2016 v. 2015.
- Company’s overall rankings for corporate reputation among
patient groups familiar with, and which work with, the company, 2016: US v. worldwide.
- Percentage of the US patient groups that worked with the company—but which also worked with other companies, 2016.
- Performance of the company at corporate reputation in different therapy areas, compared with its own US average for the indicators of corporate reputation, 2016.
For more information about this US analysis, please use contact details below.
|