New pharma
7.7K views | +7 today
Follow
New pharma
Pharma's struggle for a new commercial model
Curated by rob halkes
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scooped by rob halkes
Scoop.it!

Social Media Pharma Company of the Year

Social Media Pharma Company of the Year | New pharma | Scoop.it

Measuring influence – how we used the Healthcare Social Graph® Score to determine PM Society’s Digital Awards winner The PM Society’s 2016 Digital Awards Winners!

The PM Society’s 2016 Digital Awards took place last month in London, and we were again asked to do the analysis and present the winner of the Social Media Pharma Company of the Year award.

In order for a company to have an effective social media presence it must know where the relevant conversations are taking place, the style of messaging that resonates among the participants, and most importantly who the influencers are within those networks of individuals. We used the Healthcare Social Graph® algorithm to determine weather a company was able to reach their audience from engaging key opinion leaders and their spheres of influence.

The five companies shortlisted for the award were AbbVie, Bayer, Boehringer, Novartis and Pfizer. [...]

But before we get to the winner, let’s walk through how we computed the data.

From the 606 million healthcare tweets collected during 2015 we analyzed the conversations around the top 10 diseases with the highest mortality rates in the U.K.; Breast Cancer, Lung Cancer, Prostate Cancer, Stroke, Dementia and Alzheimer’s Disease, COPD, Heart disease/failure, Lymphoma, Bowel Cancer and Pneumonia.
Over 500 different hashtags were part of the dataset covering these 10 diseases.The pharma accounts with the highest influence and engagement were identified by the Healthcare Social Graph Score. [...]

Social Media Pharma Company of the Year is – Boehringer

It is our hope, that from the transparency on how this algorithm works, more companies will see the value in not only engaging stakeholders with traditionally strong voices, but including everyone in healthcare.

rob halkes's insight:

@Boehringer Ingelheim wins again the social media award for Pharma compnay of the Year! #pharma

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes
Scoop.it!

Europe: What Price Medicines? The Subject That Won't Go Away

Europe: What Price Medicines? The Subject That Won't Go Away | New pharma | Scoop.it

It's the subject that just won't go away. Which medicines should Europe's health systems pay for – and how much should they pay?

No apologies for returning to the issue, because Europe's authorities have seized on it once again, putting drug pricing at the top of the bill at a meeting of Europe's health ministers in mid-April. Pharmaceutical executives never tire of the discussion either — because they know that if it goes the wrong way, they could be out of a job, and that in the current tough economic climate, nothing can be ruled out.

Even Sanofi's CEO Olivier Brandicourt, the strong man of France's drug industry, was ready to admit — on his home turf, at a meeting in Lyon, on the eve of the health ministers' meeting — that he was "not optimistic" that the industry was getting its message across. [...]

So there is fertile ground for the health ministers' discussions of pricing — clothed in the modest figleaf of "Innovations for the benefit of the patient", as a concession to the traditional member-state insistence on keeping these decisions at national level. And Dutch health minister Edith Schippers scattered plenty of seed in advance of the meeting, with a hard-hitting paper outlining the need for action.

"The current pharmaceutical system is out-of-balance", it says, and "It is time to set a new course." Explicitly and with no apology for its radical break with tradition, it says baldly: "We should take measures to better control the price of medicines."

The paper highlights the problems that governments face. "Member states deal on an individual basis with global pharmaceutical companies, in a context of great information asymmetry between governments and industry," it points out. "Companies benefit from fragmented procurement and budgeting of medicines in Europe," and patients, people who are insured, and taxpayers throughout the European Union "are the victims." So one of the main aims should be for cooperation that can increase information-sharing and transparency about products, markets and prices, and can make better use of joint health technology assessment for reimbursement decisions is also fruitful. "If member states work together more closely," says Schippers' paper, "the imbalance at the negotiation tables can be reduced."

The industry is the culprit, despite its often helpful innovations, the paper makes clear. "The profit-oriented industry does not make drugs pricing very transparent," and  "this makes a sensible discussion regarding socially acceptable drugs prices much more difficult." Drug prices no longer take account of anything else, it suggests. "The relationship between innovation and a reasonable, socially acceptable price is absent." In addition, the industry's enthusiasm for maximizing profits leads it to make "undesirable use or even misuse" of protection mechanisms linked to intellectual property.

The result, the paper alleges, is that essential medicines - including orphan medicines and oncolytics - are not affordable or not even marketed in some countries, demonstrating how "commercial interests prevail over public interest." This, says the paper, can be considered as market failure. And it provides the justification for something akin to a declaration of war: "We should therefore aim at achieving a stronger negotiating position for the purchaser in order to compel that the price of a product better reflects its actual development cost and added value."

The mechanisms envisaged are not so clearly spelled out. But the paper before ministers speaks of European cooperation as "an important condition for a system of sustainable provision of medicines" and a way of taking a stance "to bring about the necessary changes in the market authorization framework, in regulations governing supplementary market protection in addition to patent law, and reimbursement."

This isn't going to be a straightforward confrontation between governments and industry, either. The background to the debate is the growing chorus of complaints and criticisms from patients and influential civil society organisations, to which governments — ever alert to the grass-roots, and ever sensitive to the need to placate the voluble — have been paying increasing heed.  [...]  Read further at the orginal article HERE

 



 

rob halkes's insight:

The theme of pricing new drugs will not go away. The pharma industry needs to make a clever and a responsible response to concerns of healthcare payers. Governments however too have to acknowledge that this is (in the end) not a power issue, of governement over industry or vice versa, rather a problem of colaboration between all stakeholders in care.

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes
Scoop.it!

Breakthroughs in Pharma Industry in the last 12 months

Breakthroughs in Pharma Industry in the last 12 months | New pharma | Scoop.it
Learn about the drugs discovery breakthroughs in pharma industry in the past 12 months from all around the world.

Immunotherapy for Cancer Treatment

In an international trial conducted by various organizations, 945 patients with advanced Melanoma (a type of skin cancer) were treated using the drugs ipilimumab and nivolumab. The treatment was able to delay the advancement of the cancer cells for nearly a year in 58% of the cases, with tumors stable or shrinking for an average of 11.5 months, researchers found. (...)

Entresto (TM) for Cardiovascular Diseases

Novartis’ new FDA approved medicine Entresto reduces the strain on the failing heart, and is prescribed for reducing the risk of cardiovascular death and heart failure. It is usually administered in conjunction with other heart failure therapies, in place of an ACE inhibitor or other angiotensin receptor blocker. (...)

Amgen Inc.’s Repatha (Evolocumab) for High Cholesterol

Evolocumab belongs to a new therapeutic class known as PCSK9 inhibitors. These inhibitors limit the liver’s ability to remove bad cholesterol (LDL – low density lipoprotein) from the blood.(...)

Ibrance (Palbociclib) for Breast Cancer

Cancer cells grow in uncontrolled fashion. Ibrance (FDA approved) is a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor. A kinase is a type of protein in the body that helps control cell division. Ibrance works by interfering with the kinase and stopping cancer cells from dividing and growing. Ibrance is specifically indicated for use in combination with letrozole for the treatment of postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer as initial endocrine-based therapy for their metastatic disease. (...)

Rexulti (Brexpiprazole)for Schizophrenia

Co-developed by Otsuka and Lundbeck, Rexulti is now FDA approved for the adjunctive treatment of major depressive disorder and the treatment of schizophrenia. (...)

 

rob halkes's insight:

Lots of progress in new directions of scientific research developments now paying of.

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes
Scoop.it!

BOOK YOUR PREVIEW of 'Corporate Reputation of Pharma in 2015 - The Patient Perspective'

The 2015 (published 2016) series of the CORPORATE REPUTATION INDEX OF PHARMA will contain 18 reports looking at pharma's corporate reputation in various countries/regions of the world, and in various therapeutic areas. The reports will be released regularly during 2016.

About 'Corporate Reputation of Pharma in 2015 - the Patient Perspective'—a publication series for pharma and patient groups

The 5th (2015) edition of PatientView's annual CORPORATE REPUTATION INDEX OF PHARMA has collected responses from 1,075 patient groups worldwide.
The patient groups comment on the state of pharma in 2015, and on the corporate reputation of 48 pharma companies. The first report in the series, taking a global perspective, will be published in early March 2016, and will show companies ranked for their corporate reputation from the perspective of these patient groups.
Over the past years, the CORPORATE REPUTATION INDEX OF PHARMA has been featured by the Financial Times, by Forbes Magazine, and by numerous national and trade papers around the world. The importance of PatientView's corporate reputation analyses was recognised in the Deloitte report, 'Healthcare and Life Sciences Predictions 2020 - A Bold Future?', published in late 2014. In addition, companies have featured details of the study on their websites and in their shareholder information.
As a pharma company, you may wish to obtain a preview copy of the first of the Corporate Reputation reports published in 2016, the global report. (Please note that previews are only available before the global report is sent to the media in early March 2016.)

Valuable data for your company
PatientView Corporate Reputation reports ARE NOT available in the public domain.
If you purchase a report (or reports), this latest data collected at the end of 2015 will help your company to gauge its corporate reputation in 2015.
In addition, your company can use the trend data gathered throughout the 5 years of sampling to gain strategic guidance as to the areas of strength and weakness in your company's relations with patient groups.
Obtaining a preview copy of the global report
Preview copies of the global Corporate Reputation report will be sent to purchasers near the end of February 2016.

For more information, please contact
PatientView UK: Alex Wyke or Clive Nead
Tel: 0044-(0)1547-520-965
e-mail: info@patient-view.com
Brussels office: Dee O’Sullivan
Telephone: +32-(0)2-538-7581

Mobile: +32-(0)495-893-925
e-mail: dee@patient-view.com
 Netherlands office: Drs. A.R.J. Halkes, MHA
e-mail: rob.halkes@healthbusinessconsult.com
Mobile: +31-6-31-66-2595

rob halkes's insight:

The latest Corporate Reputation of Pharma is out!
More than 1000 patient groups worldwide have submitted their view on pharma! Look here for requesting your preview copy here:
http://patientview.cmail20.com/t/ViewEmail/j/EAE5E4CFAA6B4F26/A94855B44E5D9DCA6707B176AE29F890 

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes
Scoop.it!

Pharma’s customer centric new commercial approach

Pharma’s customer centric new commercial approach | New pharma | Scoop.it

John Mack, better known as @Pharmaguy from Pharma Marketing news asked me to have an interview with me about this new commercial model for pharma, working customer centric.

We don’t have a transcript of the interview, but do like to present our preparing notes for the interview, which might enlighten some of the key points of the new customer centric pharma market approach:

Starting Point:
Pharma’s standard approach to all markets cannot go on as we do;
In general: we all know the genera threads to pharma markets, like loss of “blockbuster products”, limited access for promotion to Rx, pricing pressure, inroad of generics, new stakeholders, etc.
These are specific to all markets – And what’s more market conditions like access, regulations, promotional rules, preferences, prescription routines, etc. do make all markets differ substantially from each other, even within countries we have regions with their own health policy: e.g. Spain, France, Italy, or even onto local committees like in the UK and the Netherlands.

Need to look at new commercial models adapting to the different market conditions! How to localize/differentiate the market approach?

Read here for:

- The starting point ..

- Strategic Positioning

- Building partnerships, and

- the market approach ...

rob halkes's insight:

In a nutshell, I blogged the essential aspects of the new customer centric market approach for pharma in 2013. It is still significant today, even more when we want to  help our customers to help their patients better.

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by rob halkes from Health Care Social Media And Digital Health
Scoop.it!

How the Pharma industry uses Social Media [Infographic]

How the Pharma industry uses Social Media [Infographic] | New pharma | Scoop.it
Research shows Pharma has been slow on the uptake, but massive opportunities await New communications technology has the potential to both disrupt and enha. Marketing topic(s):Social media marketing. Advice by Robert Allen.

Via Marie Ennis-O'Connor
rob halkes's insight:

Nice Infographic about the actual use of social media by pharma (click through to original post)

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes
Scoop.it!

Patient involvement could improve medicines R&D, according to industry

Patient involvement could improve medicines R&D, according to industry | New pharma | Scoop.it
A new study by EUPATI has revealed a belief among pharmaceutical industry personnel that greater involvement of patients and the public could improve medicines research and development (R&D). The study, which is one of the first of its kind and part of the wider European Patients’ Academy (EUPATI) project, was published today in the BMJ Open.

Patients have become increasingly involved in managing their own health over recent years. Although still an emerging area, patient involvement in medicines R&D – in which patients are actively involved in research projects and in research organisations – is most visible in public research environments (e.g. the UK’s National Institute for Health Research) and areas where existing treatment options are limited (e.g. rare diseases).

Researchers interviewed 21 pharmaceutical industry professionals, representing 11 companies, from the UK, Spain and Poland, with diverse professional roles including pan-European roles, about their attitudes regarding Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) in medicines R&D.

Most of the professionals had positive beliefs about PPI, and many were optimistic that greater involvement of patients and the public would contribute positively to the medicines R&D process. However, those in Spain and Poland expressed more uncertainty about the benefits and value of PPI than those in the UK or with pan-European roles.

The interviewees also highlighted potential barriers to further PPI activity within the sector, including a sense that the concept was too intangible at the moment to persuade industry leaders of its importance and benefits; that organisational codes of practice currently represent obstacles to PPI; and that it may be difficult to engage public and patients if they have negative views of the sector.

As a result of the study, the EUPATI project is discussing the potential for a new direction towards PPI in industry-led medicines R&D and has identified examples of patient/industry partnerships in this area.

rob halkes's insight:

Patients like no other can give directions to unmet needs and wishes in medicine research. their experiences might even give new direction in new developments in drug research and design.

However as indicated elsewhere: collaborating with other stakeholders goes further than just seeing them as marketing targets.

See this blog by Andrew Spong. See here

In a different perspective, it must be said that the relationships between patient advocacy Groups and the pharma industry is not an easy one too. See PatientView

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes
Scoop.it!

A Revolutionary Paradigm Shift in Big Pharma's Organisational Development by Cristina Falcão

"Ensuring a change for the better"
A Revolutionary Paradigm Shift in Big Pharma's Organisational Development by Cristina Falcão - A paradigm is the conceptual framework upon which we build our world; it is built upon past experiences; if we are not willing to make shifts in our paradigms, we will remain stagnate in our growth a paradigm shift is a change from one way of thinking to another; it is something that does not happen like self generation it is driven by change.

Culture change is not simply about how we see others and ourselves. It is about how the system works, i.e. how we do the work together, rather than how we work together. The paradigm shift is to understand how to act on the organisation as a system.

The most critical thing to understand about a paradigm is that, in a paradigm shift, everything goes back to zero. What does that mean? It means that whatever made us successful in the old paradigm may not even be necessary in the new paradigm....

What Has Changed? Everything – 2012 Portrays Big Pharma’s Future Scenario

Governments around the world are grappling to arrive at solutions for health account deficits. Political pressures have increased during the economic crisis.

Personalised medicine means changing drug portfolios from primary care driven blockbusters towards specialties, where the medical need is so high that regulators are more ready to accept the prices. Evidence of the value that medicines bring to healthcare systems will be required to achieve access and funding in both developed and emerging markets. 

However, changing portfolios to address the changing pharma landscape is not enough; the pipelines are dry and R&D costs continue to skyrocket - the new paradigm is not about portfolios. Broadly, to raise innovation returns back to the level that prevailed in the era of blockbusters, pharma companies need transformational change.


Read on here

rob halkes's insight:

Already in 2012, change was needed to pharma's business model.
Nowe we see the urge to incrfease by heavy debates on pricing of drugs and generall influences of pharma industry on prescription.

Tghe time has come to act. Not just by changes to the commercial approach, like multi channel management, or other add ons to the traditional promotion, but a rethink and design of the proper approach.
See my work on pharma here

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes
Scoop.it!

AstraZeneca digs into precision medicine with lung, heart deals

AstraZeneca digs into precision medicine with lung, heart deals | New pharma | Scoop.it

AstraZeneca is diving deeper into personalized healthcare with two projects that move the concept beyond cancer into respiratory disorders and heart disease.

Personalized or precision medicine, which tailors treatment to a patient's genetic profile, is an increasing focus for drug companies, especially after an initiative from U.S. President Barack Obama in January.

Until now, however, the focus has been on cancer, where genetic mutations are well-known drivers of disease.

"The time is now right to extend the personalized healthcare approach and the benefits it brings to all of our therapy areas," Ruth March, who heads the initiative at the British drugmaker, told reporters.

"Up to now the science of personalized healthcare has been slower to reach those common disease areas such as cardiovascular and respiratory disease."

To redress the balance, AstraZeneca said on Wednesday it had signed two deals, one with Abbott Laboratories for a diagnostic test to accompany an experimental asthma drug and another with Canadian scientists on genes associated with heart disease.

Abbott will develop a diagnostic test to identify patients with severe asthma who are most likely to benefit from AstraZeneca's new antibody drug tralokinumab, which is in final-stage Phase III clinical tests.

To date, there are no such approved blood tests for use in asthma.

A separate tie-up with the Montreal Heart Institute will screen samples from up to 80,000 patients for genetic traits linked to cardiovascular disease and diabetes, in a program that may help doctors work out which patient should take which drug.

By 2020, AstraZeneca expects half of its new drug launches will come with so-called companion diagnostics to identify those patients most likely to benefit from different treatments.

This approach is already used in cancer, with Roche's breast cancer drug Herceptin and AstraZeneca's lung cancer medicine Iressa, for example, given to patients with particular genetic profiles. Cancer has long been a key area for AstraZeneca, which was the target of a $118 billion attempted takeover last year by Pfizer.

Along with rivals in the field, AstraZeneca will showcase its latest cancer drug advances at the May 29 to June 2 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting in Chicago.

Industry analysts say most attention will be focused on the latest clinical data on AstraZeneca's combination of two experimental medicines, MEDI4736 and tremelimumab, in treating lung cancer.

rob halkes's insight:

As we have noitfied in researching the developments of Pharma into Value Added Services (see here ), pharma companies are working to see how they can develop services to thealth care that could help the development of integrated care. One aspect we have seen accentuated by the interviewees was the necessity to create partnership with other stakeholders to combine needed competencies. AstraZeneca shows this by their latest partnerships with Abbott Laboratories and the Montreal Heart Institute. Beleive me: health care won't be the same anymore - although there is still along way to go!

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes
Scoop.it!

Why Pharma Matters

Why Pharma Matters | New pharma | Scoop.it
In 1948, the year I was born, the average American man did not retire at age 65. He died of a heart attack.There were no thrombolytic drugs to break up the clots that were starving his heart of oxygen, no beta-blockers to ease the strain on his heart. There were no cardiac surgeons. Coronary artery bypass grafts lay a dozen years in the future, and though cardiac catheterization had just been developed, it would be nearly three decades before it would be used to reopen blocked coronary arteries
rob halkes's insight:

Pharma matters, in the past, at present and certainly in the future..

But how to define thier new position in healthcare: is it less or more than 'just" making new drugs??

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes
Scoop.it!

Succesful mHealth Publishing-presentation-mHealth-Summit-Israel by Research2Guidance

rob halkes's insight:
Very insightful report about the mhealth market from a Pharma viewpoint says: publishing apps by pharma is not that easy, but has been done a lot. Learn from the information about their success!
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes
Scoop.it!

37 companies reviewed in "Corporate Reputation of Pharma in 2014 - The Patient Perspective"

37 companies reviewed in "Corporate Reputation of Pharma in 2014 - The Patient Perspective" | New pharma | Scoop.it

The 4th edition of PatientView's annual CORPORATE REPUTATION INDEX OF PHARMA has collected responses from over 1,100 patient groups worldwide, which comment on the state of pharma in 2014 and on the corporate reputation of 37 companies. The first report in the series, taking a global perspective, will be published in February 2015, with companies ranked for their reputation from the perspective of these patient groups. 

Over the past 3 years, the CORPORATE REPUTATION INDEX OF PHARMA has been featured by the Financial Times, by Forbes Magazine, and by numerous national and trade papers around the world. Most recently, the importance of PatientView's corporate reputation analyses was recognised in the Deloitte report, "Healthcare and Life Sciences Predictions 2020 - A Bold Future?", published in late 2014.  

As a pharma company, you may wish to obtain a preview copy (previews are only available before the report is sent to the press in early February 2015), see information here

rob halkes's insight:

Great must see inisghts into pharma's relations to patients by @PatientView

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes
Scoop.it!

Integrated Delivery Networks (IDN) - Evolution & Necessities | Mu Sigma Thought Leadership

Integrated Delivery Networks (IDN) - Evolution & Necessities | Mu Sigma Thought Leadership | New pharma | Scoop.it
Integrated Delivery Networks (IDN) has resulted in a consolidated network for healthcare providers. Check out how this influences the decision sciences methodology for pharmaceutical companies.


Why this is important

Health care providers are undergoing a series of integrations that result in a consolidated network providing affordable and quality medical care –The IDN. Pharmaceutical companies need to evaluate their sales and marketing efforts and shift their focus from physician based selling to network based selling in order to tap the centralized decision makers.

Conventional Wisdom

Over the past few years the pharmaceutical industry has viewed Physicians as one of the dominant entities influencing its success and growth. A physician reserved the autonomy on decisions concerning the choice of therapy for his patients and was subjected to influence mainly by peers (group-practices) and Industry leaders (KOLs). Consequently, all pharmaceutical companies focused their promotional and educational initiatives on physicians. Sales teams were determined to acquire the mind share of physicians which resulted in having to tap a large group of individuals in order to expect returns. However, this is becoming old school.

The Evolving Industry

In the recent past, Health Care providers (primarily hospital chains) have undergone a series of vertical and horizontal integrations. Vertical integrations included the acquisition of primary care physicians (PCPs), strategic alliances with physicians in physician-hospital organizations (PHOs) etc. On the other hand, horizontal integrations involved the establishment of multihospital systems, alliances with neighboring hospitals and mergers. Over time, such integrations have evolved and enhanced to what is today referred to as the Integrated Delivery Network (IDN).

The integrations have resulted in the creation of a network of facilities and providers working together to offer a continuum of care. Prevailing economic market conditions and an array of healthcare reforms demands high quality of treatment at reduced costs (PPACA -2014). The very nature of integration allows IDNs to gain perspective on quality and cost factors that lead to better outcomes. This new vision focuses not only on intervention, but also on prevention and wellness, guiding patients to the most appropriate site of care, at the right time and cost. In short, IDNs are “Patient Centric” systems that act as ‘Islands of Excellence’ providing quality cost-effective treatments.

Conventional Wisdom

Over the past few years the pharmaceutical industry has viewed Physicians as one of the dominant entities influencing its success and growth. A physician reserved the autonomy on decisions concerning the choice of therapy for his patients and was subjected to influence mainly by peers (group-practices) and Industry leaders (KOLs). Consequently, all pharmaceutical companies focused their promotional and educational initiatives on physicians. Sales teams were determined to acquire the mind share of physicians which resulted in having to tap a large group of individuals in order to expect returns. However, this is becoming old school.

The Evolving Industry

In the recent past, Health Care providers (primarily hospital chains) have undergone a series of vertical and horizontal integrations. Vertical integrations included the acquisition of primary care physicians (PCPs), strategic alliances with physicians in physician-hospital organizations (PHOs) etc. On the other hand, horizontal integrations involved the establishment of multihospital systems, alliances with neighboring hospitals and mergers. Over time, such integrations have evolved and enhanced to what is today referred to as the Integrated Delivery Network (IDN).

The integrations have resulted in the creation of a network of facilities and providers working together to offer a continuum of care. Prevailing economic market conditions and an array of healthcare reforms demands high quality of treatment at reduced costs (PPACA -2014). The very nature of integration allows IDNs to gain perspective on quality and cost factors that lead to better outcomes. This new vision focuses not only on intervention, but also on prevention and wellness, guiding patients to the most appropriate site of care, at the right time and cost. In short, IDNs are “Patient Centric” systems that act as ‘Islands of Excellence’ providing quality cost-effective treatments.

rob halkes's insight:

In short: The world of health care is changing rapidly under the stres of more quality and volume for less costs of care. The formation of Integrated Delivery Networks (IDNs) will rise. To the health industry and pharma it means: if ou're not in, you're out and your competitor is in. This makes the need to change principles of market approach from a pharmaceutical company even  higher.

Don't you have a clue as to how: get in touch:
www.healthbusinessconsult.com

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes
Scoop.it!

Private Insurance FINAL YT

Amgen Canada 4 minute video explains the difference between measuring drug cost-effectiveness to private and public systems

rob halkes's insight:

Original view from Amgen in Canada about the benifits and costs of medicine... Learn about the several aspects of it!

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes
Scoop.it!

COPORATE REPUTATION FOR PHARMA 2015 in the US

COPORATE REPUTATION FOR PHARMA 2015 in the US | New pharma | Scoop.it

Patient groups in the US were more positive about pharma in 2015 than in previous years. Even so the approval ratings by US patient groups remain significantly below those given pharma by patient groups elsewhere in the world.
Reports published in 2016 on the Corporate Reputation of Pharma, as viwed by over 1,000 patient groups

rob halkes's insight:

#Pharma reputation increased in 2015, but still uch to be done!
Specifically in the US, patient groups rate pharma lower than elsewhere!

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes
Scoop.it!

Hooray for patient engagement teams

Hooray for patient engagement teams | New pharma | Scoop.it

Hooray for patient engagement teams - Articles Patient advocate Andrew Schorr welcomes pharma's efforts to listen to, and work with, patients and calls for company-wide support for these new initiatives. Andrew Schorr.
Lately I have had the chance to speak with the small teams or individuals who have been tasked by their pharma company CEO to develop new approaches to listen to, interact with, and support patients – the patient engagement ambassadors. And they have to break down barriers within their own companies to make such progress happen.

Some companies are well-resourced; others have one person learning their way around. But, having spoken with several, I believe they are all sincere in their efforts, will have funds to get things done, and have mandates from the 'C-suite' to ensure that all the 'princes' and 'princesses' in different departments pay attention and collaborate. It's a ground-breaking job.

As a patient and patient advocate myself, operating globally, I welcome this development.

It is important to start with listening. In my experience patients with the diagnoses pharma companies care about are willing to talk. Recently we connected 15 leukaemia patients with pharma leaders in an hour-long live video conversation. We hope to do more such link-ups; the patients who participated loved the fact that drug developers were listening.

One cautionary note: a word that is being bandied about by pharma companies or their agencies is 'co-creation' of content. Patients do not want slick or cartoonish content that the industry controls and is seen as one-sided or quickly out of date. Instead, pharma should support third parties who can move much faster and with great credibility and growing reach. Also, the industry shouldn't try to control the discussion. In this age of Twitter and other social media channels, things are moving really fast – too fast for typical pharma processes – and across borders for patients and their doctors.

I am hopeful that the patient engagement people who understand the new paradigm will get support for operating in new ways, as it will benefit their companies as a whole, many internal departments and, of course, patients.

Again, thanks to the CEOs who 'get it' when it comes to the patient voice and are supporting new teams to make sure it is heard loud and clear within their companies.

rob halkes's insight:

The statement by Andrew Schorr about pharma's efforts to engage with patients and put them at the center of their business indicates the difficulty in the development. Attempts by the industry do not seem to have expected results. See for instance here how pharma companies are being evaluated by patient groups worldwide:
http://www.patient-view.com/corp-reputation-2016.html


more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes
Scoop.it!

The road to digital success in pharma | McKinsey & Company

The road to digital success in pharma | McKinsey & Company | New pharma | Scoop.it

Pharmaceutical companies can play a central role in the digital revolution of healthcare. But capturing this opportunity requires identifying the right initiatives. A McKinsey & Company article.


Pharmaceutical companies are running hard to keep pace with changes brought about by digital technology. Mobile communications, the cloud, advanced analytics, and the Internet of Things are among the innovations that are starting to transform the healthcare industry in the ways they have already transformed the media, retail, and banking industries. Pharma executives are well aware of the disruptive potential and are experimenting with a wide range of digital initiatives. Yet many find it hard to determine what initiatives to scale up and how, as they are still unclear what digital success will look like five years from now. This article aims to remedy that. We believe disruptive trends indicate where digital technology will drive the most value in the pharmaceutical industry, and they should guide companies as they build a strategy for digital success.[ ..]


Trends reshaping healthcare
Outcomes based care is moving to center stage [...]

Patients are becoming more engaged [...]

New competitors are moving in [...]

More information is available about product performance [...]

Process efficiency and agility is improving dramatically [...]


Four areas of Digital Opportunity

Against this backdrop, we believe there are four main areas where digital developments will drive value for pharma companies, building on what we see as the key components of digital success—an ability to deliver more personalized patient care, engage more fully with physicians and patients, use data to drive superior insight and decision making, and transform business processes to provide real-time responsiveness.

Companies do not have to become leaders in all four areas across the enterprise—some will deliver more value than others in relation to any given disease, depending on market dynamics and their portfolio. But to decide where to concentrate their efforts, they do need to develop a point of view on each area’s potential to transform their commercial and innovation models. To help in these decisions, we sketch here a picture of how we believe successful pharma companies will operate in each area in the near future.


Capturing the value

Most pharma companies have started to build some digital capabilities, but talent and resources for their efforts can be fragmented, often across hundreds of small initiatives. Without clear strategic direction and strong senior sponsorship, digital initiatives often struggle to secure the funding and human resources required to reach a viable scale, and they cannot overcome barriers related to inflexible legacy IT systems. Talent and partnerships are also critical issues—many companies realize they need to form partnerships to acquire digital capabilities and specialist skills but are often unclear about what kinds of partnerships to set up and how to extract value from them.
Read on at the original!


rob halkes's insight:

Pharma has to know explcity how "digital" is going to support their strategic developments, internally and externally. This article by McKinsey (mid 2015) declares how several market developments causes the need for digital. It will be in the "how" that a feeling of being disrupted will emerge. But a wisely designed implementation and development process will create miracles. Specifically so with an outcome at patient level. See some necessary steps here  

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes
Scoop.it!

Almirall's Eduardo Sanchiz and Alfonso Ugarte with their view on patient centricity to pharma - eyeforpharma Barcelona 2016

Almirall's  Eduardo Sanchiz and Alfonso Ugarte with their view on patient centricity to pharma - eyeforpharma Barcelona 2016 | New pharma | Scoop.it

In these exclusive videos eyeforpharma's Paul SImms spoke with Eduardo Sanchiz and Alfonso Ugarte, resp CEO and Senior Director of Global Business Units of Almirall, on the changing pharma landscape, patient value and rewriting the business plan.

rob halkes's insight:

Inspiring to see the leadership of Almirall speaking about their personal drives to lead their company to patient centricity.

more...
PatientView's curator insight, February 8, 4:01 AM

@almirall  is featured in our new corporate rep report in March 2016  43 patient groups commenti on the company

Scooped by rob halkes
Scoop.it!

GSK, Astra, J&J link with universities in new drug research fund

GSK, Astra, J&J link with universities in new drug research fund | New pharma | Scoop.it
GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson have joined with three leading British universities to create a new 40 million pounds ($57 million) fund backing early drug research.
rob halkes's insight:

New pharma cannot do without collaboration and co-creation - not only though in research. The connection with stakeholders to create sustainable care is waiting to be developed.

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes
Scoop.it!

Corporate Reputation of Pharma-the perspective of 550 European Patient Groups - 34 companies reviewed

Corporate Reputation of Pharma-the perspective of 550 European Patient Groups - 34 companies reviewed | New pharma | Scoop.it

Published 28th September 2015: Corporate Reputation of Pharma-the perspective of 550 European Patient Groups - 34 companies reviewed

For further information about PatientView’s ‘Corporate Reputation of Pharma’ series of reports, access to a PDF version of this press statement, and report pricing, go to http://www.patient-view.com/bull-corp-reputation.html

European patient groups fear pharma’s pricing tactics are causing health inequities!

The 34 pharma companies reviewed for their corporate reputation in Europe are: AbbVie l Actavis l Allergan l Amgen l Astellas l AstraZeneca l Baxter International l Bayer l Biogen Idec l Boehringer Ingelheim l Bristol-Myers Squibb l Celgene l Eli Lilly (Lilly) l Gilead Sciences l GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) l Grũnenthal l Janssen l Lundbeck l Menarini l Merck & Co (the US company) l Merck Group (the German company) l Mylan l Novartis l Novo Nordisk l Pfizer l Roche l Sanofi l Servier l Shire l Stada Arzneimittel l Takeda l Teva l UCB l ViiV

Findings based on the opinions of 550 Europe-based patient groups responding to the 2014 edition of PatientView’s annual study: ‘The Corporate Reputation of Pharma—from a Patient Perspective’.
Survey conducted November 2014 to January 2015.
This independent study, funded by PatientView, represents (for the second time) the perspectives of patient groups based across Europe (550 in 2014) on the corporate reputation of 34 individual pharma companies, and of the European pharma industry as a whole, during 2014. The opinions of 2014’s respondent Europe-based patient groups are compared in the report with those from the 2013 European patient-group survey.


Key findings:
Europe-based patient groups regard pharma more positively in 2014 than they did in 2013: 26% of the patient groups responding to the 2014 Corporate-Reputation survey say that the industry’s corporate reputation has improved (against 18.9% saying the same in 2013).

But, even so, European patient groups express mixed emotions in 2014 about aspects of pharma: from the hope engendered in patients by a number of important new clinical trials, to the disbelief that reimbursement authorities refuse to approve some of pharma’s latest products on the grounds of the high prices set by the companies.

The lowest ratings awarded by Europe-based patient groups to pharma activities in 2014 relate to the ability (or otherwise) of pharma companies to implement fair pricing policies. As many as 43.4% of the 550 respondent Europe-based patient groups think pharma poor at pricing products fairly. This opinion is held by 63% of French patient groups, by 57% of those in Italy, 53% in Germany, 53% in the UK, and 50% in Austria [see chart, below].

Comments offered by the respondent Europe-based patient groups show that areas of distrust between patient groups and pharma include the following: pharma corruption scandals, and litigation against pharma; the possibility that health professionals may be in the pocket of the industry; absence of robust science when presenting clinical data; lack of patient access to expensive new drugs; excessive profit-making; and … not taking patients’ needs and viewpoints into consideration.

rob halkes's insight:

Great insights again in the next edition of PatientView's report on pharma reputation!

European Patient groups Europe-based patient groups regard pharma more positively in 2014 than they did in 2013! But there are drawbacks too Read it here

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes
Scoop.it!

How Pharma Can Offer More than Pills

How Pharma Can Offer More than Pills | New pharma | Scoop.it

For years, there has been a push within the pharmaceutical industry to move “beyond the pill” —  in other words, to build and deploy complementary services and solutions to diversify revenue sources. The rationale is simple and elegant: A company with experience selling pharmaceutical products should be able to successfully and profitably sell its large customers (health plans, delivery systems, and governments) other health care offerings.

The impetus to move beyond the pill typically arises from one or two realizations: 1) medicines alone are often not enough for patients to achieve optimal clinical outcomes, and 2) as pharmaceutical pipelines dry up, beyond-the-pill businesses can be valuable new sources of revenues.

However, many beyond-the-pill efforts have sputtered or died. During my years working as a pharmaceutical industry executive and advisor to senior management, I have observed that these initiatives typically fail because of one of three challenges:

Leadership.[..]

Regulatory environment. [..]

Access to capital [..]

Recruit industry outsiders [..]

Form partnerhsips [...]

Revise regulations [...]

Avoid stand alone solutions [...]

Integrate clinical trials [...]
The world will continue to need companies that develop and commercialize new medicines. Those same companies must not lose sight of this fact and recruit the right leadership to use around-the-pill services, solutions, and tools to enhance the clinical effectiveness and commercial success of their core products...


rob halkes's insight:

Inspiring article Sachin. Good to see how your experience in the field made you pick and select the best tips to go beyond the pill.
We just finished a study about the activities taken by Pharma companies to go this way. Some of your tips are being underscored by the findings, others demonstrate how it is not an easy task from the perspectivce of the traditional blockbuster business model. One of the major conclusions is indeed that knowledge about what added value might be in healthcare and what the difference is between products, services and solutions are key. Besides, and even more so: development and testing services and solutions is one thing: delivering is quite a different game. Not only does the very intention impact the demands to customer relationships: how they are developed into a conditional quality of such relations, but the question of how to get revenue for the added value is quite a challenge. These things have to be thought through before scaling solutions/services to be sure about reimbursement.
See here for the study report: http://social.eyeforpharma.com/content/value-added-services-2015
Rob Halkes @rohal

more...
Dinesh Chindarkar's curator insight, August 5, 2015 9:56 AM

Inspiring article Sachin. Good to see how your experience in the field made you pick and select the best tips to go beyond the pill.
We just finished a study about the activities taken by Pharma companies to go this way. Some of your tips are being underscored by the findings, others demonstrate how it is not an easy task from the perspectivce of the traditional blockbuster business model. One of the major conclusions is indeed that knowledge about what added value might be in healthcare and what the difference is between products, services and solutions are key. Besides, and even more so: development and testing services and solutions is one thing: delivering is quite a different game. Not only does the very intention impact the demands to customer relationships: how they are developed into a conditional quality of such relations, but the question of how to get revenue for the added value is quite a challenge. These things have to be thought through before scaling solutions/services to be sure about reimbursement.
See here for the study report: http://social.eyeforpharma.com/content/value-added-services-2015
Rob Halkes @rohal

Scooped by rob halkes
Scoop.it!

Value Added Services 2015 | Thought leadership and innovation for the Pharmaceutical Industry - EyeforPharma

Value Added Services 2015 | Thought leadership and innovation for the Pharmaceutical Industry - EyeforPharma | New pharma | Scoop.it

3 tailored roadmap's to solutions in healthcare beyond the pill.


- Understand the creation of successful services by looking at organizational structure and internal processes, how to partner with external stakeholders, and how to make projects economically viable.

- A roadmap tailored to your company with three scenarios for creation, development, implementation and up-scaling of ‘Value Added Services’.

- In-depth case studies of company-wide initiatives and specific projects, such as Janssen Healthcare Innovation, Sanofi Integrated Care, Pfizer Integrated Health, Grunenthal´s ‘My pain feels like’ and Boehringer-Ingelheim´s ‘Picasso’.

rob halkes's insight:

I was as happy to conduct the research for Eyeforpharma's Value Added Services Report. It changes the view on how pharma could integrate its different market approaches to focus and be more effective. Effective: both in services to customers and patients, and in commercial return.

I gave already some presentations and workshops to interested audiences, e.g. see here

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes
Scoop.it!

Corporate reputation of pharma (from a patient perspective) in 2014 -37 companies ranked

Corporate reputation of pharma (from a patient perspective) in 2014 -37 companies ranked | New pharma | Scoop.it

PRESS RELEASE FROM PATIENTVIEW: 'The Corporate Reputation of Pharma in 2014—the Patient Perspective’, and how the corporate reputation of pharma companies has changed over the past four years

An independent study by PatientView

• Findings based on a survey of 1,150 patient groups (from 58 countries and of differing specialties)
• Survey conducted mid-November 2014 to mid-January 2015
• Patient-group feedback on the corporate reputation of the entire pharma industry during 2014
• Patient-group feedback on the corporate reputation of 37 individual pharma companies in 2014
• Results for 2014 are compared with those of 2013, 2012, and 2011

The 37 pharma companies reviewed in the study are: AbbVie l Actavis l Allergan l Amgen l Astellas l AstraZeneca l Baxter International l Bayer l Biogen Idec l Boehringer-Ingelheim l Bristol-Myers Squibb l Celgene l Eisai l Eli Lilly (Lilly) l Gilead l GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) l Grũnenthal l Ipsen l Janssen l Lundbeck l Menarini l Merck & Co (USA) l Merck KgA (Germany) l Mylan l Novartis l Novo Nordisk l Otsuka l Pfizer l Roche l Sanofi l Servier l Shire l Stada Arzneimittel l Takeda l Teva l UCB l ViiV Healthcare [...]

The majority of patient groups respondent in 2014 acknowledge (as "excellent" or "good") pharma’s innovative capabilities, and its ability to ensure patient safety. However, the majority of patient groups do not believe that the industry is “excellent” or “good” in its other activities. These further activities are:

Having a good relationship with the media / Providing high-quality information for patients / Providing access to clinical trials / Having a patient-centred strategy / Acting with integrity / Managing adverse news about products / Having ethical marketing practices / Providing services to patients outside its business remit / Being transparent in all corporate activities / Practising philanthropic activities / Fair pricing policies

rob halkes's insight:

PRESS RELEASE FROM PATIENTVIEW: 'The Corporate Reputation of Pharma in 2014—the Patient Perspective’, and how the corporate reputation of pharma companies has changed over the past four years.

Remarkable: it shows that health care insurances and payors fall below the industry's reputation of pharma!


more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes
Scoop.it!

Nurturing change in pharma marketing - PMLiVE

Nurturing change in pharma marketing - PMLiVE | New pharma | Scoop.it

At the turn of the millennium, as the industry began its painful descent from the summit of the blockbuster era, the optimisation of sales resources in a changing environment was global pharma's biggest strategic challenge.

Arguably, it still is. The days when vast armies of representatives descended on GPs in their droves have long departed;[..]

But, as the wider world adapts to technological evolution, even pharma is not immune to the need for real change. In fact, if managed appropriately, technology could provide the catalyst for optimal, efficient and highly effective sales engagement. [..]The rapid development of digital, mobile and ambient technologies has transformed the global communications paradigm, and, with it, set new expectations in how consumers and professionals consume information.[..]he next phase of commercial optimisation will focus not on the death, but on the depth of a salesman. The development of a more nuanced, multichannel approach, where organisations harness technology and leverage communications and insight across a variety of channels, can support and supplement the work of the field force. By adopting a balanced, multichannel approach with the sales force at the centre, companies can enjoy deeper engagement, build deeper relationships and communicate the depth of information that customers in the value-based economy require.[..]

The word 'multichannel' is now de rigueur in marketing circles, but in the pharmaceutical industry, it's a look that's proving difficult to pull off. In the real world, however, it's a simple proposition. “The Holy Grail is having a mixture of channels that enable you to engage with the broadest contingent of customers, with the requisite frequency, to help influence prescribing and change behaviours,” says Julian. “From a sales perspective, the routes to market are manifold. For example, the medical representative, KAM, hospital representative and MSL (medical scientific liaison) are all different channels. So too are call centres, web-enabled remote representatives and other forms of online engagement. The industry is looking at lots of different ways in which it can engage, but - crucially - none of them are mutually exclusive.

Perhaps that's the major obstacle: mutual exclusivity runs deep in pharma's operational psyche. “To progress, everything needs to be integrated across all channels. However, although pharma is putting all these channels in place, they still operate them in silos,” says Jan. [..]”

The future model of pharmaceutical sales will almost certainly be multichannel - but, despite the harbingers of doom, the sales professional will remain the driving force. “The best multichannel approaches will comprise the proper alignment of human and digital resources,” says Jan. “Technology can help provide scale, speed, intelligence and analytics - but it's only by putting human resource at the centre of communications that multichannel can fully deliver.”

rob halkes's insight:

Multichannel - Surely, Integrating technology with human face-to-face meetings? Right on. Knowing the customer in its characteristics, preferences and demands? Even more so.

Sales forces, rather "customer facing forces", to signal the multidisciplinary, cross functional obligation from all "inside", are here to stay. But, one needs to remember that multichannel in this respect is only refering to the means, the instruments of communication! Don't forget content management that goes right with it. One would say, that it's what they meant here, but little has been said about it.

Pharma people need to learn how not to tell the same message again and again, but to build on the messages an interaction with customers to a higher level of relation quality. 'Quality' to be measured in development from information to common interests, goals and co-creation - the end game of "sales"! If such quality is not build in, boredom and annoyance rise and create dislike of meetings: "Don't send me any more information, I've had them" ...

When however, common interests lead to new collaboration, pharma needs to be ready to invest time, expertise and money into better solutions to the common end: better care and better health outcomes. If not, no relations will last, and the only value is in the product. That is good, of course, but in the advanced markets, it's not enough.

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes
Scoop.it!

Different healthcare systems influence marketing practices by pharmaceutical companies

Different healthcare systems influence marketing practices by pharmaceutical companies | New pharma | Scoop.it

Countries have different healthcare systems to provide access to medical services and prescription medications for their citizens. The healthcare system model determines access to basic care, compensation for medical professionals and how fast innovative new drugs are available from medical providers. The way healthcare systems influence the marketing practices of pharmaceutical companies is explored by comparing the healthcare systems of the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), Germany and Poland.In this article, George Sillup and Marta Makowska compare the healthcare systems in the US, UK, Germany and Poland. They explore the different ways in which these systems influence the marketing practices of pharmaceutical companies. ...

rob halkes's insight:

That's why it is so "d...." necessary for pharma companys to learn how to differentiate their market approach to different countries with different health care systems, decision making structures and reimbursement rules.


Lots of Pharma companies have been thinking that new procedures of market access would do the needed trick.  -   They must have learned by now, that this is not the only thing. ..


We have been publishing about it already in 2009, see here http://slidesha.re/12ML9yk

more...
No comment yet.