Pharma reputation in 2018 - among UK patient groups - falls due to Brexit and other factors

Embargoed publication date: Tuesday, 16th July 2019 6AM GMT

Press release based on the results of a new report: 'The Corporate Reputation of Pharma, 2018—the Perspective of UK Patient Groups'

The views of 111 UK patient groups responding to the 2018 Corporate-Reputation survey:
- 50 specialties.
- 16% have an international geographic remit; 53% a national geographic remit; 10% regional (within the UK); and 21% local.
- 43% of the 111 UK patient groups worked with at least one pharma company (the 2017 figure was 64%).

The 2018 Corporate-Reputation survey, undertaken between November 2018-February 2019, was answered by senior executives from the patient groups (on behalf of their groups). Each patient group carries the same weight in the results (irrespective of whether the patient group is large, medium, or small in size). Companies are assessed for 12 indicators of corporate reputation.

The 19 pharma companies reviewed for their corporate reputation in the 2018 UK study: AbbVie I Allergan I Amgen I AstraZeneca I Bayer I Biogen I Boehringer Ingelheim I Bristol-Myers Squibb I Eli Lilly (Lilly) I Gilead I GSK I Janssen I Merck & Co (known as MSD outside the US and Canada) I Novartis I Novo Nordisk I Pfizer I Roche (represented by Genentech in the US) I Sanofi I and Takeda (including its 2018-2019 acquisition, Shire).

Since 2012, UK patient groups have remained consistently more negative about the pharma industry’s corporate reputation than patient groups worldwide

Chart 1. Percentage of respondent patient groups stating that the corporate reputation of the pharmaceutical industry as a whole was “Excellent” or “Good”, 2012-2018 (UK patient groups v. patient groups worldwide)

28% of 2018's 111 respondent UK patient groups stated that pharma had an “Excellent” or “Good” corporate reputation (32% said that in the 2017 survey).

PatientView has analysed the pharma industry’s corporate reputation in the UK (from the perspective of UK patient groups) for seven years. Each year, UK patient groups have judged the industry's ability to conduct various activities of importance to patients and patient groups as declining―with the steepest falls being seen in the industry's capacity to innovate. In addition, 2018's respondent UK patient groups marked the industry poorly for three types of transparency: pricing policies; sharing of clinical data; and funding of external stakeholders (although similar feedback is seen among patient groups worldwide).

Chart 2. 2016-2018: Percentage of UK patient groups stating that the pharmaceutical industry was “Excellent” or “Good” at INNOVATION.

Chart 3. Percentage of UK patient groups stating that the pharmaceutical industry was “Excellent” or “Good” at TRANSPARENCY.

National cancer patient group, UK:

"Pharma companies are rarely ‘innovative’ from a charity-sector perspective; labelling new medicines ‘innovation’ can be confusing, since the creation of new medicines is what pharma companies do.”

Age Concern Luton, UK:

"Be honest and as open as possible in public information about ethics, medications, finances, and relationships with other organisations.”

Why, in 2018, do UK patient groups mark down the pharma industry even more than in previous years?

Brexit was one reason why UK patient groups in 2018 became more disaffected with the pharma industry than before. As the planned withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union drew closer, many UK patient groups began to publicly voice fears about possible interruptions to the country’s drug supplies. National Voices, for instance, a UK umbrella patient organisation, campaigned to highlight UK patients’ concerns on the subject [https://www.nationalvoices.org.uk/projects/brexit].

Which companies topped the Corporate-Reputation rankings in the UK in 2018?

2018’s Corporate-Reputation results should be considered in the context of two specific biases to the survey in the UK:

Firstly, only 43% (48 in number) of 2018’s 111 respondent UK patient groups worked with one or more pharmaceutical companies—a figure far lower than from the respondent body worldwide (which was 81%). As a consequence, a number of the companies featured in this 2018 UK report only worked with a small fraction of the respondent UK patient groups familiar with them. Patient groups usually (though not invariably) tend to be more positive about their corporate partners than patient groups that do not work with the industry. To this extent, then, the majority the UK patient groups responding to 2018’s survey were more distant to pharma than they might have been.
Secondly, five companies were included for the first time in the UK analyses in 2018: Allergan, Biogen, Gilead, Novo Nordisk, and Takeda/Shire. The presence of five extra companies inevitably had an impact on the 2018 UK rankings vis a vis the rankings of 2017.

Ranking for corporate reputation is measured by patient groups familiar with a company (which includes a company's patient-group partners). Such patient groups provide feedback on the public-domain persona of the companies.

Gilead (included in the UK rankings for the first time in 2018) was ranked overall 1st out of 19 companies for corporate reputation in 2018 by the 18 UK patient groups claiming familiarity with it. Gilead was also ranked 1st by these patient groups for three of the 12 individual indicators of corporate reputation: high-quality patient information; patient-group engagement; and involvement of patients in R&D.

Both Janssen and MSD made big increases in their overall rankings in the UK in 2018.

Janssen was ranked overall 2nd out of 19 companies for corporate reputation in 2018 by the 29 UK patient groups claiming familiarity with it—up eleven places from 2017. This significant jump in the rankings was due to Janssen being seen by UK patient groups as improving at four of the 12 individual indicators of corporate reputation: patient safety; transparency of pricing policies; transparency in the funding of external stakeholders; and patient-group engagement.

MSD (known as Merck & Co in the US) was ranked overall 4th out of 19 companies for corporate reputation in 2018 by the 55 UK patient groups claiming familiarity with it—up eight places from 2017. This large rise in the rankings was due to UK patient groups perceiving MSD to have improved at three of the 12 individual indicators of corporate reputation: patient safety; high-quality products; and the provision of services 'beyond the pill'.

Novartis was ranked overall 3rd out of 19 companies for corporate reputation in 2018 by the 64 UK patient groups claiming familiarity with it. In 2017, Novartis had been ranked 4th out of 15 companies by UK patient groups. Novartis has, year on year, steadily increased its overall ranking for corporate reputation among UK patient organisations. Novartis’ most-significant increases in ranking in the UK in 2018 at any of the 12 individual indicators of corporate reputation were for: high-quality products; and patient engagement in research.

As well as rises in the UK rankings—also, some falls

Two companies—AbbVie and Boehringer Ingelheim—took noticeable drops in their overall rankings at corporate reputation in 2018, as assessed by UK patient groups. AbbVie was ranked overall 15th out of 19 companies for corporate reputation in 2018 by the 28 UK patient groups familiar with it; in 2017, AbbVie had been ranked 1st out of 15 companies by UK patient groups. AbbVie’s biggest decline in the UK in 2018 at any of the 12 individual indicators of corporate reputation was high-quality products. The reason may be because the patent on the company’s top product, Humira, expired in the UK and the rest of Europe in 2018 (just before the 2018 Corporate-Reputation survey opened). Several pharma manufacturers are now able to supply cheaper biosimilars of the drug, and patient groups favour price reductions in treatments.

Globally, Boehringer Ingelheim has seen a steady annual improvement in its corporate reputation among patient groups worldwide. However, the company’s corporate reputation declined in the UK in 2018, with Boehringer being ranked overall 17th out of 19 companies for corporate reputation by the 31 UK patient groups familiar with it (in 2017, Boehringer had been ranked overall 6th out of 15 companies by UK patient groups). One possible explanation for the company’s reduced corporate reputation in the UK in 2018 is that Boehringer decided, in December 2018 (when the Corporate-Reputation survey was running), not to launch its biosimilar for Humira—Cyltezo—even though the drug had been approved for use in Europe.

Looking at the UK rankings for corporate reputation of just 13 of the 'big pharma', peer to peer

Setting out the 2018 UK rankings of just 13 of the biggest of the multinational pharma companies provides a different perspective on how these very-large companies fare at corporate reputation (against what they regard as their corporate peers). Janssen and Novartis both came joint 1st; and MSD came 3rd.

... End of press release ...