New (DNA-based) ways of drugs discovery render more (potential) medications for ever more personalized medicines – It impacts their organizational and marketing substantially. How is the phar…
Get Started for FREE
Sign up with Facebook Sign up with X
I don't have a Facebook or a X account
Tags |
---|
Your new post is loading...
Scoop.it!
New (DNA-based) ways of drugs discovery render more (potential) medications for ever more personalized medicines – It impacts their organizational and marketing substantially. How is the phar… No comment yet.
Sign up to comment
Scoop.it!
From PatientView See here PatientView is continuing to provide historical perspectives on data about pharma’s corporate reputation. For the latest edition 8 years of historical data are available.
Profile of 2018's respondent patient groups: - 1500 respondent patient grouops - from 78 countries - covering 102 medical specialties - 61% are natinal patient groups and - 9% are international patient groups - Patient-group partnership with industry: 1218 of the 1500 respondent patient groups (81%) worked with/partnered with at least one pharma company
46 Pharma companies analysed: AbbVie I Acorda Therapeutics I Allergan I Almirall I Amgen I Astellas Pharma I AstraZeneca I Bayer I Bial I Biogen I Boehringer Ingelheim I Bristol-Myers Squibb I Celgene I Chiesi Farmaceutici I CSL Behring I Daiichi Sankyo I Eisai I Eli Lilly (Lilly) I Ferring I Gedeon Richter I Gilead I Grifols I Grünenthal I GSK I Ipsen I Janssen I LEO Pharma I Lundbeck I Menarini I Merck & Co (MSD outside of the US) I Merck KGaA/EMD Group I Novartis I Novo Nordisk I Octapharma I Otsuka I Pfizer I Pierre Fabre Laboratories I Roche (Genentech in the US) I Sanofi I Servier I Takeda (including Shire) I Teva I UCB I Vertex Pharmaceuticals I ViiV Healthcare PatientView has produced a separate analysis of the corporate reputation of 13 of the biggest of these 46 pharma companies, to enable peer-to-peer comparisons between the larger companies. HOW DID THE INDUSTRY FAIRE? In 2018, patient-group attitudes towards the pharma industry as a whole remained on a par with those they held in 2017:
See further information in the original press release of PatientView here: http://bit.ly/pharmaCorpRep2018
rob halkes's insight:
Pharma 2018/19 globally, looks to upgrade a bit of their Corporate Reputation. In general patients groups which are familiar and even working/partnering with at least one pharma company regard the company better. Partnering with patients works very well! Although the part of collaboration in research studies stays disappointingly low, it is one of the best ideas to a sustainable business for pharma.
Scoop.it!
London, April 5th, 2018. The 'Corporate Reputation of Pharma in 2017' report is based on the findings of a PatientView November 2017-February 2018 survey exploring the views of 1,330 patient groups worldwide. The report provides feedback (from the perspective of these patient groups) on the corporate reputation of the pharma industry during 2017, as well as on the performance of46 pharma companies at 12 key indicators that influence corporate reputation. The Corporate-Reputation survey is now in its 7th edition—thus, 7 years of historical data are available. In addition, we incorporated several important new indicators of corporate reputation into the 2017 survey—to reflect the changing, and more demanding, relationships that now exist between patient groups and pharma companies.
In 2017, patient-group attitudes towards pharma improved, after plummeting in 2016. 43% of respondent patient groups thought that the pharma industry had an "Excellent" or "Good" corporate reputation in 2017—against 38% of patient groups saying the same in 2016. In 2017, respondent patient groups ranked the pharma industry 3rd overall for corporate reputation out of 9 healthcare-industry sectors, the other sectors being: biotech; generic-drugs industry; health insurers (for-profit, and not-for-profit); medical-device industry; private-sector healthcare; and retail pharmacy. In 2016, patient groups ranked the pharmaceutical industry just 5th out of 9 healthcare sectors. PHARMA ALSO IMPROVED IN KEY ACTIVITIES IN 2017 ... 2017's respondent patient groups rated pharma as improving its performance over 2016 at three areas of activity important to patients and patient groups: patient centredness (35% of the patient groups stated that the industry was “Excellent” or “Good” at this activity, compared with just 26% in 2016); integrity (31% described the industry as “Excellent” or “Good” at this activity, compared with just 28% in 2016); and in services provided ‘beyond the pill' (27% thought industry “Excellent” or “Good” at this, compared with just 20% in 2016).
rob halkes's insight:
Patients, when working with pharma and actually knowing the pharma company they work with, see developments to collaboration with them! Inspiring results from those who care! ;-) http://www.patient-view.com/--corp-rep-reports-published-2018.html
Scoop.it!
It's my 71st birthday and I decided it's a good time for me to move on to a new role. Unbelievable, right? John "PharmaGuy" Mack is seventy-one years old!
In case any of you are interested in following my new career as a Township Supervisor, you can catch me “speaking truth to power” online:
PharmaGuy aka SupervisorGuy Via Pharma Guy
rob halkes's insight:
Dear John, @Pharmaguy Pharma will never be the same again as you now shutter your on line activities, information, reflection, critique and most of all your commitment to the industry! I guess we need to wonder how 'we' or who might (be able) to fill in the gap you leave to the market, governments, companies and individuals, and patients! Thanks for all of your pundit information, knowledge and thoughts! We will surely miss you! Cheerz to you, Rob P.S. What about your Hawaian shirt now?
Scoop.it!
The results of exclusive research with people seeking health information online in the US, UK and Canada should be a wake-up call for pharma, says Richard Meyer. The results of a recent survey with over 16,000 people looking for health-related information suggest that pharma companies need to review their digital marketing capabilities. The data come from research with responders in the US (n = 9,544), UK (n = 3,674) and Canada (n = 3,285).
Here are some topline findings. (1) Regarding the search for online health information, most were confused with the depth of information found and spent a lot of time trying to better understand and confirm it. Among the key complaints were that health information was too hard to understand and that some of the information was outdated. (2) Pharma product websites were only seen as resources for the drug, not as resources for health information. In addition pharma companies did not update their content enough, especially when treatments were in the news. (3) The number one online site mentioned was WebMD but the vast majority of respondents (71%) said they went to multiple websites to get all the information they needed. (4) Social media was becoming more important in the search for online health information, with people looking for information on the experiences of others with certain treatments, along with ways to save money and work with their insurance companies to get a prescribed/recommended treatment. (5) Women went online for health information more than men, although they only went online when there was a trigger (i.e. upcoming appointment with doctor, or diagnosis). (6) Respondents did go to pharma websites to review medications, but also went to competitors’ sites. Their choice of treatment was often based on cost and benefit versus side effects, as it related to quality of life. (7) Even though direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising is not permitted in the UK or Canada, online health information seekers still used the Internet to visit pharma websites. (...)
Some of the (US) respondents were chosen for an in-depth follow-up conversation via phone call to better understand their biggest concerns with healthcare. The US respondents’ number one concern was the rising cost of health insurance, with a majority saying that it was eating into their compensation. In fact, some said that they wouldn’t leave their current employer because they were afraid of either losing insurance or paying more for it with a potential new employer. In probing this issue to better understand attitudes towards insurers, people were happy to expand on this subject. Essentially, they felt that their health insurers were not treating them like customers and were dictating treatments too much. For example, one woman had to wait 60 days to try a new multiple sclerosis treatment, which meant she had have 60 days without any treatment. “I’m the customer,” she said. “What the hell am I paying you for?” The biggest frustration with the US healthcare system was the inability to share medical records with a variety of physicians. Patients believed that their medical records were THEIR property and wanted them to follow them if they moved location or visited specialists. In Canada respondents reported that the overriding issue was the time it could take to see a specialist, which could be weeks or months. Some said that they had crossed the border into the US in order to see a specialist sooner. The moderator for this research and our data analysts consistently observed that “people seem to be getting lost in the search for healthcare information” and that they “often look to their doctor to help them sort it out”. They felt as though they were not visible in a system that, they felt, treated them as a number rather than as a person who had a lot of questions and anxiety...
rob halkes's insight:
Current market conditions, both in US, Canad and UK, show how the developments in healthcare emerge more quickly than pharma companies are able to follow up. Here's a research telling how patients experience difficulties to find information on thier health conditions and about their own health. They must feel as being a number not recognized for their intent to seriously understand what their condition is all about and how to cope. It also appears that pharma is not the only stakeholder that lacks behind patient engagement: healthcare insurances as well as health provider institutes ignore or even willfully sustain barriers for patient to learn for themselves and do something about their own condition. It's no wonder so, that health care costs keep on rising!
Scoop.it!
In the 2016-2017 round of its two annual surveys of corporate reputation—the corporate reputation of pharmaceutical companies, and the corporate reputation of medical-device companies—PatientView invited companies to contribute their thoughts on their own patient-related activities, 2016-2017. Ten pharma companies (AbbVie, Bayer Vital Gmbh, Eisai, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lundbeck, Novartis, Servier, Teva and ViiV Healthcare), and two medical-device companies (Coloplast and ConvaTec) offered contributions. These companies answered the following questions posed to them:
To obtain a copy of this report email:
rob halkes's insight:
New report by PatientView reports what pharma (10) and medtech (2) companies were doing - in their own words - on patient centricity and patient-advocacy-group relations during 2016/17, also in reply to the corporate reputation findings from PatientView's annual services. FInd out how your company's activities relate to these!
Scoop.it!
Here's a new report on the factors influencing drug expenditure, including the issues around pricing. It surely helps politicians and other stakeholders to understand the complexity of the pricing process pharma companies see themselves confronted with.
Recent reports of increases in drug list prices and overall spend on medicines have put the spotlight on the cost of medicines in the U.S. The increasing list prices of specific medicines has, in particular, generated significant media attention. These messages have amplified concerns of policy makers, insurers, pharmacy benefit managers and other healthcare stakeholders that drug prices are to blame for rising costs in the U.S. healthcare system. However, much of the coverage on list prices has left out the more complex context of the prices, including
In this report you will find an in-depth analysis of the trends in medicine spending growth and manufacturer net revenues suggesting a far more complex situation than one of prices set by manufacturers simply being too high or growing too fast. In particular the report highlights the dynamics between prices and volume and introduces a novel way of combining market segments to consider the impact of patent expiry alongside other price related elements. The result is a clearer reflection of trends that affect the costs of medicines in the market. The report also notes that the trend of manufacturer revenues and patient costs are evolving in opposing directions, and that patient exposure to cost trends are not uniformly distributed across patients.
rob halkes's insight:
More insight into pricing of medicines.
Here's a new report on the factors influencing drug expenditure, including the issues around pricing. It surely helps politicians and other stakeholders to understand the complexity of the pricing process pharma companies see themselves confronted with.
The Quintiles_IMS_insitute published a report on the drivers of drug expenditure in the U.S. "Much of the coverage on list prices has left out the more complex context of the prices, including
I must state: obliged reading for policy makers, insurers, pharmacy benefit managers and other healthcare stakeholders, including journalists (!)
And, still this is not the whole story, of we also look at regulations to access to markets, including reimbursement ruling and influences of reimbursement models/schemes like pay for performance and population health, as well as preference schemes for medicines by medical committees or payer incentives...
Scoop.it!
At next month’s Patient Summit Europe (19-20 October, London) find out how you can be more than a trusted partner – get yourself on the same side as your patients, and deliver sophisticated advocacy that fights their cause.
rob halkes's insight:
“Some drug companies are really focused on patients, and some don’t have a clue.” Lynn Bartnicki, patient advocate - a quote from the report of Eyeforpharma. Good to see some words from pharma and patient advocates published. Even better to follow and read one of the many publications about the pharma and patient groups' relations: a trying but difficult engagement You can look at the patient perspective in "pharma corporate reputations", or overviews of the patient movement. A study about pharma and the connected patient. And above all: check your own credibility as a pharma company in the eyes of patients: your bespoke data on your company, for its different affiliations and therapy areas, based on 6 years of global data on corporate reputation in the perspective of patients and patient groups.
rob halkes's curator insight,
September 13, 2017 8:41 AM
“Some drug companies are really focused on patients, and some don’t have a clue.” Lynn Bartnicki, patient advocate - a quote from the report of Eyeforpharma. Good to see some words from pharma and patient advocates published. Even better to follow and read one of the many publications about the pharma and patient groups' relations: a trying but difficult engagement You can look at the patient perspective in "pharma corporate reputations", or at overviews of the patient movement. A study about pharma and the connected patient. And above all: check your own credibility as a pharma company in the eyes of patients: your bespoke data on your company, for its different affiliations and therapy areas, based on 6 years of global data on corporate reputation in the perspective of patients and patient groups.
Scoop.it!
Husson: Over the past few years, I was lucky enough to travel to many different places: in most European countries, in the US, in Brazil, in the Middle East, in India, in Indonesia or very recently in Japan and Thailand. The digital revolution is happening all over the place and it is fascinating to see how it is changing people’s habits. In particular, mobile is a game changer in most economies and this will only accelerate. (..) Significant economic, political, and technology trends will strain global digital strategies further by elevating the importance of local relevance. Over the next few years, we expect the following trends:
To close this capability gap, marketers must evolve their cultural mindset, adapt their organization to share more responsibilities with local teams, implement an insights-driven approach to personalize experiences, and upgrade their global technology infrastructure.
rob halkes's insight:
Unexpected(?) trend in Engaging global brands with local customers/users. Thomas Hudson: ".. counter intuitively, digital complicates global marketing... digital increases customer expectations for relevance, giving local brands the edge. Such competition exposes global brands’ digital marketing gap, forcing them to localize their digital approach." I gathered this before for Pharma companies: Pharma needs to differentiate to local! See https://lnkd.in/gqb86hV - and here: https://lnkd.in/eDMsDdr .
Scoop.it!
New research released by the Deloitte UK Centre for Health Solutions explores how digital technology can help pharma embrace patient centricity to remain relevant, profitable, and to deliver better health outcomes. In April-May 2017 PatientView was commissioned by Deloitte UK Centre for Health solutions to conduct a survey regarding the use of health apps, including those produced or developed by pharma companies. The primary objective of the survey was to map the patient usage of health apps and determine patient group views of the usefulness of pharma health apps. 190 patient groups responded to the survey, representing 56 therapy areas from 38 countries. A summary of the results is available on PatientView's website; the final Deloitte report and blog results are available on Deloitte's website.
Conclusion
These attributes provide insights that companies can utilise to inform their app development strategies and address the concerns of patients. Indeed, if pharma is able to demonstrate clearly that these requirements are met, then patient-centricity will have a chance of gaining traction. However, if their needs remain unmet, then patient adoption of health apps, in particular those created by pharma, will remain low.
rob halkes's insight:
To use Health Apps, patients appear to have trust in apps produced by patient groups and peers. They are willing to share data with coordinating their care. Trust is the main factor that indicates use of apps. Using apps or sharing data with large corporations is less likely. Pharma and Devices companies could best partner with care coordinating and providing teams and enable them to help patients in the best ways.
Scoop.it!
While the level of drug expenditure is closely watched and often commented upon, the composition of that expenditure and its dynamics are less This report describes the dynamic changes in the composition of drug expenditure over the period 1995 to 2015 for five developed countries—France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Over the past 20 years, therapies that once dominated spending are now dramatically less important, while other entirely new therapies have risen to a significant share of spending. Key insights include:
Across all five countries, some common patterns emerge in terms of the therapy areas that now make up the large portion of spending and those that have declined. That said, each country has a distinct set of dynamics, spending compositions, and underlying clinical, disease, and policy drivers. Download the report here
rob halkes's insight:
Some noteworthy conclusions at the summary of the report on drugs spend in period 1955 - 2015: "Nominal drug expenditure measured at invoice price level has risen substantially over the past 20 years across all five countries analysed - France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom (U.K.) and the United States (U.S.) - but less so when normalized for economic and population growth and especially in the most recent decade. By contrast, drug spend has not risen as rapidly as a percentage of health expenditure, and for some countries has declined from peaks in the late 1990s. The amount of spending for new branded drugs – those on the market for less than 2 years in that country – is generally less than 10% of spending in all countries analyzed. At least 60% of drug utilization by patients are drugs that are generic or do not require a prescription." Inspiring read for policymakers too!
Scoop.it!
The number of women in power is on the rise in the pharmaceutical industry. Meet some of the leading ladies who are paving the way.
rob halkes's insight:
"The willingness to break out of the comfort zones" seems to be a critical attitude for women now in pharma top executive positions. Yet, I see from some of them how they had a career before that doesn't make their actual position a surprise. It is willingness from both sides: those who offer their prospects and those that hire them. Some is changing for the good in pharma: but are we in time? ...
Scoop.it!
IFPMA » The Globalisation of the Pharmaceutical Industry Comprehensive study (Open Access see downloads) to update your insights into the industry.
rob halkes's insight:
Last November published in Open Access, The Gloablisation of the Pharmaceutical Industry. Editors J.L Valverde and Eduardo Pisani. IFPMA
Scoop.it!
This report profiles the NASs launched in the U.S. over the past 20 years and measures the length of a molecule’s lifetime from patent filing to launch and eventual patent expiry. It also explores the significant variations in this lifetime when viewed by molecule characteristics such as therapy area, orphan drug status, and the type of companies involved in the development and marketing. Take a look at some of the coverage from the event in The Scientist, American Journal of Managed Care, and The Pharma Letter.
rob halkes's insight:
Relevant Insights into the development in lifetime characteristics of biopharmaceutical substances: only relative few outliers that make a quick retunr about 1$ billion a year (within 5 years after launch) Modest levels of average return (less than $100 billion) a year for 62% of launches in the past 20 years. The commercial returns for a small number of outlier molecules areoutsized but rare, while a substantial number of molecules baing launches achive levels of commercial success that fall far below threshold levels of economic return. Take a look at some of the coverage from the event in The Scientist, American Journal of Managed Care,
Scoop.it!
Flumoji is your health wizard. Tell it how you feel and it will magically learn how to help protect you from Flu and other ailments.
Flumoji is being tested by MIT and GSK to see if it can speed up identification of flu outbreaks.
“Real-time tracking of seasonal flu outbreaks is key,” says GSK on Facebook. “However, researchers have yet to find a tracking mechanism that’s fast and reliable enough to support testing of potential #flu treatments in clinical trials.” Via Pharma Guy
rob halkes's insight:
RWE (real world evidence) and RWD (-data) bear the promise that we find context conditions and personal factores needed for #precisionmedicine ! It takes more to "tango" however, so it is good to see how initial collaborations begin to find ground!
Scoop.it!
In a blog post in early 2016, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Dr. Robert M. Califf shared the agency’s intent to make 2016 “The Year of Diversity in Clinical Trials.” In doing so, Califf acknowledged FDA’s awareness that certain groups of patients may respond differently to different therapies and that “a wide range of people should have the opportunity to participate in trials, both for access to new therapies and to have the chance to contribute to better treatment of everyone.” As FDA notes, minorities—along with the elderly and women—have historically been underrepresented in clinical trials. African-Americans, for example, comprise 13.2 percent of the population, but only 5 percent of clinical trial participants, while Hispanic patients represent 16 percent of the population, but just 1 percent of participants. Meanwhile, Caucasians account for 67 percent of the population and 83 percent of research participants. Advertisement Similarly, certain classes of hypertension drugs have recently been found to be less effective in African-American patients, while African-Americans with a certain common genetic variation require lower doses of the blood thinner warfarin compared with Caucasian patients. The inclusion of multiple ethnicities is essential in the clinical trial process for these reasons, and also because all patients should have equal access to opportunities for advanced care funded by clinical trial sponsors. Getting to the root of the problem The two primary reasons for low participation rates in clinical trials among minorities are feelings of mistrust among potential participants and an overall lack of awareness due to inefficient recruiting methods. Both of these issues need to be addressed to begin moving the dial on recruitment and enrollment of minority patients. The mistrust is based on a well-documented history of unethical clinical research, especially the U.S. Public Health Service’s Tuskegee syphilis study. The study induced 600 African-American men to participate in various experiments over a 40-year period. Participants who were diagnosed with syphilis were never informed of their condition, nor were they offered treatment. Many died of the disease, infected their wives, and/or passed congenital syphilis to their children. As a result, residual mistrust of clinical trials remains today among many members of the African-American community. Unfortunately, even though awareness of the need for more minority patients in clinical research has increased, traditional clinical trial recruiting methods have not been effective in terms of increasing the pool of minority participants. In fact, traditional recruitment methods that rely heavily on direct-to-consumer marketing such as Google ads and billboards to attract patients are failing to keep pace with trial demands in general—regardless of ethnic background. They fall even shorter when it comes to ensuring clinical trial diversity. Even with the widespread use of radio, television, and social media, nearly 70 percent of all clinical trials experience delays as a result of recruitment issues. How we can do a better job together As an industry, we need to do a better job informing potential participants of all racial and ethnic backgrounds about available clinical trials. At the company I lead, ePatientFinder, we have found that getting physicians more involved in the recruiting process, rather than relying on direct-to-consumer marketing, encourages greater patient access and participation. We recognize that community physicians have historically had little visibility into active studies, and we also have learned that patients are more likely to participate in clinical trials if their doctor recommends them. The wide-spread adoption of EHRs and the growing availability of sophisticated analytics is making it easier to leverage the trusted physician-patient relationship and more accurately and quickly identify protocol-eligible patients. Physicians can leverage these tools to identify potentially life-changing (or even life-saving) trials in the patient’s geographic area that offer opportunities for advanced care. Of course, this needs to be done in an HIPAA-compliant way, with patients opting in to have their medical records analyzed and matched with specific studies in their area for which they may be eligible, including any related to patient race and ethnicity. Patient outreach coordinators can then work with their physicians to pre-quality patients and connect them with the trial sponsors or contract research organizations (CROs) that are enrolling patients. Increasing access through bilingual initiatives This targeted approach is of particular value to patients who are non-native English speakers and who may have difficulty understanding the direct-to-patient recruitment messages that often appear in television commercials or in Internet ads. My company has started taking steps to increase access and break down barriers for minority patients who are not fluent in English, starting with Spanish-speaking patients. Some initiatives that are increasing access for these patients include offering screening questionnaires in both English and Spanish and hiring bilingual patient outreach coordinators to work directly with native Spanish-speakers. Patients are then able to discuss potential trial opportunities in Spanish and have a bilingual coordinator assist them in the enrollment process. Greater access for greater understanding Greater diversity in clinical trials is critical not only as related to equal access but also for understanding the full impact of different therapies and for ensuring their safety and effectiveness for people of all racial backgrounds. The best ways to achieve this are to increase access and awareness by adopting innovative approaches to patient recruitment that center on the trusted physician-patient relationship and leveraging EHRs and analytics to identify qualified patients.
rob halkes's insight:
"Precision Medicine" is one influence that will impact the way pharma is performing its R&D. There are more, like doing studies in real world conditions, delivering details about why a medicine in practice performs or not. But there are more challenges, like partnering with other industries and getting support and partnerships from the tech world, e.g. to dliver fine tuning diagnostics. The pharma world will not be a dull place to work in, in 2017. Results don't come easy. ;-)
Scoop.it!
Mobile is encouraging healthy behavior Pharmaceutical manufacturers, payers and healthcare providers (HCPs)—as well as a host of tech-focused newcomers—are exploring digital programs that complement standard therapies and hold promise to keep patients healthier and produce better outcomes. Known as “beyond-the-pill” or “around-the-pill” services, they have been a long time coming, and may finally be gaining traction, according to a new eMarketer report,“US Healthcare Beyond the Pill: Digital Tech and New Partnerships Bring New Life to the Industry” (eMarketer PRO customers only).
For the past several years, healthcare and pharma firms have been trying, with mixed success, to step up their beyond-the-pill programs. Early efforts included basic informational websites and simple apps designed to provide information about medical conditions and therapies. “When the pharma industry first moved into digital technology, it was primarily in the marketing space, leveraging things like websites or HCP portals to share product information and to educate,” said Amy Landucci, head of digital medicine at Novartis. “But in the last three years, we’ve seen a pretty big shift away from just doing digital marketing—though it’s still very important—to looking at how technology can help enhance patient outcomes.” Today’s beyond-the-pill solutions can collect, monitor and analyze health-related information, track patient activity, improve medication adherence, provide personalized decision support, predict medical crises and streamline medical care using a variety of advanced computing techniques. Mobile technology, the IoT and AI are three of the technologies making this possible. Read one here Save
rob halkes's insight:
Pharma started about thinking in terms of servicing health care "beyond the pill" in about 2000. Today developments have been increased by ideas of 'integrated care' and "precision medicine" the latest concept indicates fine tuning of medications to personal physical and genome conditions. Diagnostics are all in the game, that is. But a study in which I participated [ http://1.eyeforpharma.com/LP=5676 ] made clear that development and creation is one, servicing and delivering is two. Partnerships for example are unavoidable is one in in the game for sustainable business.
Scoop.it!
Like in most industries, players in the pharmaceutical world get a boost when customers the world over feel that they are innovators, act responsibly and are, generally speaking, a force for good. Recently a survey was published scoring exactly how good people in developed countries all over the world feel about big pharma.
rob halkes's insight:
Just discovered the global pharma reputation ranking by the Reputation Institute. Based on 7 dimensions of reputation, defined by the institute, the companies were evaluated by respondents around the world. These were "Products&Services, Innovation, Workplace,Governance, Citizenship, Leadership and Performance". See the RepTrak Institute here PatientView however has studied the global reputation of pharma companies in the perspective of patients and patient groups since 2011! See here. Their respondents were also distinguished by those who state to be familiar with a company and those who really worked with a company, which generates interesting data! PatientView is now preparing data such that companies can retrieve their bespoke ranking data to see how their reputation in the perspective of patients can further be improved
Pharma Guy's curator insight,
January 2, 2017 10:27 AM
NOTE: One trend pharmaceutical companies should take note of is the tendency of respondents to be uninformed or neutral about what companies actually do in certain areas. According to the survey, 12% of respondents did not have knowledge or opinion about the companies’ overall performance. Meanwhile, 11% had no knowledge of companies’ citizenship activities (promoting good causes and protecting the environment) and 14% didn’t know anything about the workplaces of the firms they were asked to score.
Scoop.it!
While numerous congressional inquiries have purported to seek solutions or culprits for rising prescription drug prices, the American people appear to be placing the blame squarely on the laps of prescription drug manufacturers, according to a new survey released by the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA).
That survey, conducted for PCMA by North Star Opinion Research, found that three quarters of voters say the cost of prescription drugs is too high, and 55 percent said that drug companies are most to blame for high drug costs.
Mark Merritt, president of PCMA, which represent the nation’s pharmacy benefit management (PBM) companies, pointed out that only 7 percent of Americans blame his association’s industry for high drug prices, despite the brand prescription drug manufacturers’ attempts to shift the blame to PBMs (read “Pharma CEO Rips Insurance CEOs a New One! Exposes Salaries, Blames Them for High Drug Prices”: http://sco.lt/6kN065 and Tracking Who Makes Money On A Brand-Name Drug”: http://sco.lt/7h31Ht).
Further Reading:
Via Pharma Guy
rob halkes's insight:
Drug pricing is not an one sided action. There are at least two parties need to buy and sell. In health, it is more complicated: government, payers and other institutions are involved in the pre market reimbursement discussion. So, can a simple survey find the truth of the game? A more just approach is to discuss and see how multi-disciplinary partnership in healthcare can raise quality, outcomes and satisfaction and save costs.
Scoop.it!
Staggering hikes — in some cases higher than 5000%— in prices of prescription drugs threaten the health and economic stability of Americans who can't afford vital medicines, a congressional report warned Wednesday.
The findings by the Senate Special on Aging summarize the panel's 2016 investigation of records from four pharmaceutical companies and public hearings that focused on sudden price spikes in decades-old medications and the pricing decisions imposed by drug industry entrepreneur Martin Shkreli and other industry executives.
Turing Pharmaceuticals and Retrophin (RTRX), two firms once headed by Shkreli, embattled drugmaker Valeant Pharmaceuticals International (VRX) and Rodelis Therapeutics are among companies that dramatically raised prices on some decades-old, off-patent drugs they acquired and controlled through monopoly business models, the report said.
The Committee discovered that each of the four companies followed a business model (with some variation) that enabled them to identify and acquire off-patent sole-source drugs over which they could exercise de facto monopoly pricing power, and then impose and protect astronomical price increases. The business model consists of five central elements:
Find the Senate report here. Via Pharma Guy
rob halkes's insight:
Messing around with prices is the worst marketing intervention to gain trust and sustainability, I'd say! #pharma #hcsm
Scoop.it!
Precision medicine is significantly impacting pharma dealmaking, R&D and market access, according to a new report from Datamonitor Healthcare. Precision medicine is about more than molecularly targeted treatments. It increasingly refers to a far broader notion of getting the right therapy to the right patient at the right time, using any one or more of a multitude of tools and technologies. It is about getting better data about patients’ conditions, needs and lifestyles in order to allow the most appropriate treatment, and, ultimately, effective prevention strategies. Precision medicine is typically associated with the use of therapies that target particular disease-linked genetic mutations, identified via a diagnostic test. However, the term – sometimes used interchangeably with personalized medicine – has recently come to describe the much broader idea of getting the most appropriate therapy to the right patient at the right time, using any number of tools and technologies, whether molecular, digital, or other. Precision medicine has the potential to transform healthcare delivery, quality, and efficiency. It is already changing how pharmaceutical firms approach R&D, offering the prospect of being able to conduct faster, smaller, and cheaper trials. Yet the practice of precision medicine remains rare. Its widespread adoption faces scientific, infrastructural, economic, regulatory, educational, and commercial hurdles. While these are slowly being addressed, particularly in oncology, across most of healthcare, precision medicine remains tomorrow’s, rather than today’s, opportunity.
rob halkes's insight:
"Precision medicine" is very rich concept for new and better care, focused on better outcomes. The basic idea is clear and convincing. But is Health Care and health industry ready for it. We now see movements in the right direction in big pharma, specifically in oncology. The question remains: are all stakeholder going to benefit from this new perspective. Is it to be expected that all can gain as much as the patient? So, is it a viable strategy? We see already partnerships to be grounded. On the bright site we may expect that stakeholders in care will learn how to create a more patient (personal) focus and create better outcomes. But can any one tell if that's so?
Scoop.it!
EMA: European Union agency responsible for the protection of public and animal health through the scientific evaluation and supervision of medicines.
Annual report 2015 see download here
The framework for interaction between EMA and patients and consumers and their organizations outlines the basis for involving patients and consumers in Agency activities. EMA's Management Board endorsed a revised framework in 2014. The framework aims at:
This framework is in line with EMA's overarching framework for stakeholder relations management, which the EMA Management Board adopted in June 2016. Patients and consumers are involved in a wide range of activities at the Agency, including:
rob halkes's insight:
The European Medicines Agency has adopted a new framework for interaction between EMA and patients and consumers and their organizations in June of this year. They have now published their annual report of 2015
See download of the report here http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Annual_report/2016/06/WC500209168.pdf
Scoop.it!
The Access to Medicine Index analyses the top 20 research-based pharmaceutical companies on how they make medicines, vaccines and diagnostics more accessible in low- and middle-income countries. 2016 Access to Medicine Index Overall Ranking In 2016 moderate progress is visible in the pharmaceutical industry’s efforts to improve access to medicine. GSK leads for the fifth time, ahead of Johnson & Johnson, Novartis and Merck KGaA. GSK leads for the fifth time ahead of Johnson & Johnson, Novartis and Merck KGaA. Critically, these companies show needs-orientation, matching actions to externally identified priorities in the access agenda. For example, they invest in R&D for urgently needed products, even where commercial incentives are lacking. Their access strategies support commercial objectives, with clear business rationales. Incremental improvements Lower ranked companies have each improved in at least one measure, and withstood closer scrutiny: the 2016 Index used tougher measures than in 2014. Change by these companies has been incremental. Exceptions are Takeda, which launched a new access strategy and rose from 20th place, and Bayer, which lost ground as others improved. In the top ten Following the first four, the remaining companies in the top ten each show strength in at least one area, yet have room to deepen engagement in access to medicine. There have been two significant shifts in this group. Novo Nordisk falls to 10th place. Its solid access frame- work applies to few products (albeit those considered key for access). AstraZeneca joins the top ten, with an expanded access strategy and notable pricing practices. Lowest rankings Lagging furthest behind are Roche** and Astellas. Roche is less transparent than its peers, yet it advances in other measures, with new access initiatives and strong processes for ensuring compliance. While Astellas shows some improvements, such as a new pledge not to enforce IP rights in certain poor countries, these were not sufficient to avoid being overtaken. - Best practices - Company records Cards - Key findings etc.
rob halkes's insight:
Just recently the Access to Medicine Index 2016 for Pharma Companies has been published!
Scoop.it!
THE CORPORATE REPUTATION OF THE PHARMA INDUSTRY IN 2015: THE PERSPECTIVE OF 209 PATIENT GROUPS with an interest in MENTAL HEALTH (2nd edition)
THE 20 COMPANIES ASSESSED ...
COMPANIES ASSESSED FOR ...
This report is based on the findings of a PatientView November 2015-January 2016 survey exploring the views of 209 patient groups with an interest in mental health conditions. The report provides feedback (from the perspective of these patient groups) on the corporate reputation of the entire pharma industry during 2015, as well as on the individual performance of 20 pharma companies at six key indicators that influence corporate reputation. The 2015 mental-health results are compared with the responses received in 2014 from patient groups in the same therapy area, as well as with those provided by patient groups from across all therapy areas in 2015. Why is pharma’s corporate reputation still poor among mental-health patient groups? See more here (download full content description and tables overview)
rob halkes's insight:
Specific information on how patients value pharma companies on mental health. See patient-view.com
Scoop.it!
Quintiles IMS Webinar: December 8th: Global Outlook for Medicines Through 2021
Join Murray Aitken and Michael Kleinrock for a webinar on December 8th to discuss findings from the much anticipated Global Outlook for Medicines through 2021 Report (to be released December 6th). During the webinar, they will share an updated perspective on - and the implications of - the use of new and existing medicines as well as spending levels and access constraints through 2021. The report focuses on a global view of the markets for all types of pharmaceuticals, including small and large molecules, brands and generics, those dispensed in retail pharmacies as well as those used in hospital or clinic settings.
See this link December 8th Global Outlook for Medicines through 2021 Report (to be released December 6th).
rob halkes's insight:
Stay tuned to the global outlook of medicines. Webinar on December 8th by Quintiles IMS See this link December 8th Global Outlook for Medicines through 2021 Report (to be released December 6th). |