Despite incipient signs of leveling off, pharmaceutical rep access to physicians continues to decline, particularly in certain specialties and areas of the country. Overall, close to half of all doctors in the United States are now considered “access restricted” to varying degrees. Does that figure constitute a point of no return for physician access, a need for pharma companies to reinvent access strategies, a reconsideration of “access” entirely—or all of the above?
Medical Marketing and Media Why the Time is Ripe for Pharma to Embrace Mobile Medical Marketing and Media Go beyond the standard 300x50 or 320x50 mobile default. 300x250 ads adapt beautifully to smartphone browsing.
comScore, Inc. (NASDAQ: SCOR), a leader in measuring the digital world, today released results from its eighth annual Online Marketing Effectiveness Benchmarks for the Pharmaceutical Industry, conducted in partnership with marketing innovation consultancy Evolution Road LLC.
Cette infographie est issue d’une analyse réalisée par EmailStrategie de juin 2013 à juin 2014. Les résultats sont basés sur 140 000 campagnes e-mailing, réalisées par 500 entreprises clientes. 298 millions d’ouvertures ont été ainsi prises en compte.
Panique à bord, la digitalisation en entreprise ? Ni affolement, ni fol enthousiasme. Plutôt un attentisme mêlé d’appréhension qui génère du retard chez nombre d’acteurs économiques. Or, l’intégration du numérique est non seulement une clé du développement mais aussi le vecteur d’une nouvelle façon de travailler, plus transversale et collaborative. Explications.
by McKinsey; See also Insights by Gary Monk at MobiHealth here
A McKinsey & Company article: Insights from our international survey can help healthcare organizations plan their next moves in the journey toward full digitization.
The adoption of IT in HealthCare systems has, in general followed the same pattern as other industries. [ ..] As for its effects on the healthcare sector, this second wave of IT adoption helped bring about, for example, the electronic health card in Germany. It was also a catalyst for the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act in the United States—an effort to promote the adoption of health-information technology—and the National Programme for IT in the National Health Service in the United Kingdom. Regardless of their immediate impact, these programs helped create an important and powerful infrastructure that certainly will be useful in the future.
Many institutions in the private and public sector have already moved to the third wave of IT adoption—full digitization of their entire enterprise, including digital products, channels, and processes, as well as advanced analytics that enable entirely new operating models. No longer limited to helping organizations do a certain task better or more efficiently, digital technology has the potential to affect every aspect of business and private life, enabling smarter choices, allowing people to spend more time on tasks they deem valuable, and often fundamentally transforming the way value is created. What will this third wave of IT adoption look like for healthcare?
Players in the healthcare industry were relatively successful at—and benefited from—the first and second waves of IT adoption. But they struggled to successfully manage the myriad stakeholders, regulations, and privacy concerns required to build a fully integrated healthcare IT system. This is partly because the first and second wave of IT adoption focused more on processes and less on patient needs. Still, programs like the N3 communication network in the United Kingdom and the secure telematics platform in Germany have created powerful infrastructures that have the potential to support the third wave of digital services in healthcare—but only if stakeholders take the appropriate next steps.
Now that patients around the world have grown more comfortable using digital networks and services, even for complex and sensitive issues such as healthcare (successful websites DrEd, PatientsLikeMe, and ZocDoc are just three examples of this trend), we believe the time has come for healthcare systems, payors, and providers to go “all in” on their digital strategies. The question is, where should they start?
[...] Success in the third wave of digital depends very much on first understanding patients’ digital preferences in both channel and service. But many digital healthcare strategies are still driven by myths or information that is no longer true. We interviewed thousands of patients from different age groups, countries, genders, and incomes; respondents had varying levels of digital savvy. Our research revealed surprising and actionable insights about what patients really want, which can in turn inform how healthcare organizations begin their digital patient-enablement journey. Here, we present five of those insights.
Myth 1: People don’t want to use digital services for healthcare
Many healthcare executives believe that, due to the sensitive nature of medical care, patients don’t want to use digital services except in a few specific situations; [..] . In fact, the results of our survey reveal something quite different. The reason patients are slow to adopt digital healthcare is primarily because existing services don’t meet their needs or because they are of poor quality. [..] 1 more than 75 percent of respondents would like to use digital healthcare services, as long as those services meet their needs and provide the level of quality they expect (Exhibit 1).[..] Of course, nondigital channels will continue to be relevant and important, so digital channels will have to be embedded in a well-thought-through multichannel concept.
Myth 2: Only young people want to use digital services
[..] however, that patients from all age groups are more than willing to use digital services for healthcare (Exhibit 2). In fact, older patients (those over 50) want digital healthcare services nearly as much as their younger counterparts. More than 70 percent of all older patients [..] A recent report from the European Union2 suggests that service type—not just channel—should be segmented by age; [..]
Myth 3: Mobile health is the game changer
[..] our survey shows that demand for mobile healthcare is not universal. It is therefore not the single critical factor in the future of healthcare digitization [..]
Myth 4: Patients want innovative features and apps
[..] But the core features patients expect from their health system are surprisingly mundane: efficiency, better access to information, integration with other channels, and the availability of a real person if the digital service doesn’t give them what they need. [..]
Myth 5: A comprehensive platform of service offerings is a prerequisite for creating value
When going digital, many institutions—not only those in healthcare—think it is necessary to “go big” before they can achieve anything; they believe they must build a comprehensive platform with offerings along the entire spectrum of customer services. But our survey finds that it can be smarter to start small and act fast (Exhibit 4). [..] Surprisingly, across the globe, most people want the same thing: assistance with routine tasks and navigating the often-complex healthcare system.[..]patients most often cite “finding and scheduling physician appointments"[..] selecting the right specialist and support for repetitive administrative tasks such as prescription refills. What most of these services have in common is that they do not require massive IT investments to get started.
The third wave of digitization in healthcare: Getting started
Three steps can help healthcare companies begin their journey toward the third wave of digitization. The first step is to understand what it is that patients really want and the best way to give it to them. [..] Next, organizations should segment their services according to basic criteria such as the amount of investment required, estimated patient demand, and value created through the service.[..] And finally, just like organizations in other industries, healthcare companies should continually add new services to keep patient attention and build value. Once patients are familiar with the general idea of digital-service provision, organizations can begin offering more complex, high-value services, such as integrated-care companion apps or mobile health records....
Everything is bigger in Texas, including mHealth technology. On Tuesday, DocbookMD — a HIPAA-secure mobile communication company — announced plans to aggressively push its innovative solutions across the Lone Star State.
In a recent study conducted by MedData Group, a healthcare marketing firm in Massachusetts, 2/3 of American doctors surveyed use mhealth apps while on the job. Nearly 50% of these doctors say they use mobile apps to ...
Digital Transformation in the pharmaceutical industry provides the means to, not only revise its business model, but also increase its relevance to its ultimate customers – patients, physicians and other consumers of its products and services.
Social media have opened anew channel of communication for pharma industry, making possible that direct communication could be their way to contact to their final clients, patients. Social media could help brands to consolidate and improve people's reliability on them but also they could injury their image, because of the power that users have on making all messages viral. It happened to a powerful pharma company, when, having been at the forefront of a corruption episode in China, their news spread like wildfire through social media and they lost millions of dollars in the stock market.
Pharma industry regulatory organisms have tried, recently, to set standards to regulate companies activity in social media. USA's Federal Drugs Administration (FDA) is the last one who has published guidelines, through the Office of Prescription Drug Promotion (OPDP). Particularly, these guidelines make recommendations in two fields:
Presentation of risks and benefits of a prescription drugin social media, in channels with limitation of characters (Twitter, payment links in search engines as Google and Yahoo). FDA establishes (see guide) that pharma should include in their official accounts information about drug's risks and give to consumer the possibility to access to further information about these risks.
Correction of mistaken informationpublished by third parties about prescription drugs and medical devices (see guide). It allows companies to correct information about their products that they consider is mistaken, in pages like, for example, Wikipedia.
Mobile Health Global has talked to two experts in pharma digital marketing in the United States.John Mack, Pharma Guy (blog), andRichard Meyer(blog), who have given us their views about both guidelines published by FDA.
John Mack (@pharmaguy)
Pharma Industry had waited for more than five years for the publication of these use guidelines of social media by OPDP, after a public audience in 2009, where the stakeholders of this field gave their opinion. In my view, first guideline blocks pharma activities in social media, while second one opens a possibility. First one is a bit diffuse and it does not specify how much information about risks is necessary. This fact could limit companies' action, who won't risk to fail.
There are some aspects that have not been addressed, as information showed in Twitter through mobile devices -different from a computer- (for example, to watch images it is necessary to click them) and new Twitter functionalities, as Cards, which allow users to include more information (articleabout this subject).
Second guideline gives pharma industry what it was demanding, it allows the industry to correct mistaken Wikipedia's information. However, if companies do not work aligned with Wikipedia -for example, assigning an editor who interacts officially with this source-, efforts to correct or update information perhaps will be ignored or some months would be necessary for Wikipedia to make changes.
I think that, despite these suggestions, companies that have been proactive in social media will keep being proactive, while those who have been wary of being there, will continue with this attitude.
Richard Meyer (@richmeyer)
Pharma industry marketing is now in a crossing. To arrive to patients they need a digital strategy but, because of the financial pressures and the way how they are focused on in the ROI (Return of Investment), I do not think that big companies would take the risk of implementing a social media strategy in a channel that ROI has not proved.
The real power of social media for this industry is that this channel connects it with patients and improves public's reliability. Despite barriers that budgets and resources put up, it is important to be there.
In my opinion, guidelines proof that FDA do not understand how empowered patients make decisions about their health. No patient will take a decision only because of a content published in social media. On the other hand, each disease is a little market with singular characteristics. For example, multiple sclerosis is a really active market on the net, and their users are connected, but people with depression are not. Until marketing professionals in this industry achieve a bigger knowledge of social media and of their clients' requirements, they will let the train pass.
Spain and The United Kingdom, two contrary regulations
In Spain, the new code of practices inFarmaindustriais what makes suggestions about companies' activity in social media. Particularly, in the article 8 of this code, which talks about digital environment.
Carmen Casado (@CarmenCasadoS)
As Carmen Casado's (@CarmenCasado) view, who is a lawyer specialized ICT on health field, the new pharma industry code, entered into force last 1stJanuary, could have developed better aspects about social media: "This reform would have been a great opportunity to clarify differences between general and sectorial regulations, particularly about the responsibility of contents and the obligation of the industry on tracking social media. This obligation exists both in media and own networks and in foreign ones, because the challenge is in controlling what we say about us but also what other people say about us and our products.
Spanish code establishes that pharma companies are responsible of the contents they spread through channels they direct or indirectly control or exclusive or mainly finance - but not of the contents about the company or their products that are issued by third parties in digital environment, as United Kingdom code specifies. Pharma industry code also encourages companies to create guidelines and behavior rules for company's workers who interact in digital environment.
A more confined activity by British regulatory organism
Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA), regulatory organism for pharma industry in the United Kingdom, published a guide about digital communications in 2011 (updated in 2014), where it confines the activity of the industry in social media. As Casado says, "In the United Kingdom they know that, because of the particularities that internet has and its strict regulatory framework in advertising and pharma security, it is necessary to specify the activity of this industry in social media. There are already resolutions about the use of Twitter". And she adds that "I think that in Spain it could have been regulated similarly to United Kingdom's model".
British guide stablishes that industry can provide information to public through social media. It also obligates companies to register adverse effects of their medications that they could receive from social media and to inform of them in their websites.