New pharma
4.9K views | +2 today
Rescooped by rob halkes from Health stats and digital health cornerstones
onto New pharma!

Health IT startup claims pillbox app has boosted adherence rate to 81% in two months

Health IT startup claims pillbox app has boosted adherence rate to 81% in two months | New pharma |
A health IT startup claims since its mobile health app to improve patient adherence hit the market in November, patient adherence has exceeded 81 percent.

Via Dan Baxter
rob halkes's insight:

Adherence, the name of the game: but how difficult is it to adapt the support and the therapy to patients' needs!

rob halkes's curator insight, January 9, 2013 11:02 PM

Indeed, the more adherence the more gain to those providing the necessary therapies - bit let's remember 1st things first: therapy is the thing to mend the condition... isn't it?

Dan Baxter's comment, January 11, 2013 5:47 AM
Also judging by the somewhat cynical response i've had to this post that technology like this does not mean that the overlying 'buy in' from the patient over why they must take their medication can be ignored.....
rob halkes's comment, January 31, 2013 2:53 AM
Fully agree with you Dan, in an orientation research on diabetic patients on their individual related factors to adherence, it turned out very and several different factors do influence the inclination to adhere or not, or even when and how.. a pillbox might help but I guess it is only for a few percentages explaining actual adherence behavior!
New pharma
Pharma's struggle for a new commercial model
Curated by rob halkes
Your new post is loading...
Scooped by rob halkes!

Value in Pharmaceutical Pricing | OECD iLibrary

Value in Pharmaceutical Pricing | OECD iLibrary | New pharma |


This study analyses how 14 OECD Countries refer to “value” when making decisions on reimbursement and prices of new medicines. It details the type of outcomes considered, the perspective and methods adopted for economic evaluation when used; and the consideration of budget impact. It describes which dimensions are taken into account in the assessment of “innovativeness” and the consequences of this assessment on prices; it confirms that treatments for severe and/or rare diseases are often more valued than others and shows how countries use product-specific agreements in an attempt to better align value and price.



The main objective of this report was to explore value-based pricing for pharmaceuticals. In principle, value-based pricing (VBP) can offer better value-for-money for purchasers of pharmaceuticals. It also gives clear signals to pharmaceutical companies that they will be rewarded if their products address the priorities of the purchasers, so in the longer run may reorient pharmaceutical innovation in a more cost- effective direction. However, it is easier to talk of rewarding ‘value’ than it is actually to do so. Is it value to the purchaser that should be the basis of decisions (i.e. some combination of the increase in health and the reduction in other health spending) or the value to society (which would also take into account increased labour force productivity of those who are less sick and those who no longer care for others, amongst other things)? Is there ‘value’ in innovation itself? Countries which use value-based pricing for pharmaceuticals do not make the same choices as to how to determine value. Furthermore, countries which do not have value-based pricing per se may take into account some of the elements used in economic assessments of value in making their decisions. This report attempts to shed light on what impact these different choices make to reimbursement decisions and prices.


Read on in the downloadable PDF!

Please cite this paper as:

Paris, V. and A. Belloni (2013), “Value in Pharmaceutical Pricing”,

OECD Health Working Papers, No. 63, OECD Publishing.

rob halkes's insight:

Very insightful research!

Just for your appetite, I quote two relevant conclusions:

  • The first, and by no means trivial, conclusion is that the type of health outcomes considered by assessment bodies and decision-makers to inform or make decisions on reimbursement seem to have more in common with each other than differences. (p.58)

  • One substantial difference between the case-study countries is whether they take into account utility for patients as a measure of outcome. Typically, countries using economic evaluation consider utility (Australia, Canada, Sweden, Norway and the United Kingdom) while other countries (e.g. France or Italy) do not. This is expected to have an impact on reimbursement decisions, price levels and relative prices of different categories of products. From the sample of countries and products scrutinized, it was not possible to identify such an impact.(p.58)

No comment yet.
Rescooped by rob halkes from Pharma!

Pharma's current business model 'does not put the patient at the heart of its decision-making', says KPMG

Pharma's current business model 'does not put the patient at the heart of its decision-making', says KPMG | New pharma |

Pharmaceutical companies need to stop simply paying lip-service to patients and radically alter their business models if they are to meet increasing global demand while improving patient outcomes, says KPMG....

Ultimately, we need to change our perception of the pharmaceutical ‘value chain’ to a new ‘value ecosystem’ which puts the patient and the customer at its centre, with other business services wrapped around their needs. Some companies have already started to grasp the nettle and are moving in the right direction – for instance, one life sciences company we spoke to is currently working on an innovative approach to diabetes,” he noted.

Via Andrew Spong
rob halkes's insight:

Indeed the pharma model needs to be build on an comprehensive view on pharma's role, actions and services in the market. See a draft version to this here:

No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes!

Up to 70% of non-adherence is voluntary |

Up to 70% of non-adherence is voluntary | | New pharma |
Patients who take medications as doctors direct may save as much as $7,800 each year.

An Eyeforpharma report has some great information on adherence.  There are many reasons given by patients for not adhering to their prescribed treatment. The most obvious are that they simply forgot to take their medicine. This generally corresponds to only about 30% to 40% of cases. In other words, up to 70% of non-adherence is voluntary; people decide not to follow their therapy, either discontinuing it altogether (i.e. not being persistent) or not taking it as often as they should (non-compliant). Why?

Different studies supply different answers to that question, but they can generally be grouped into the following categories:

  • Concerns about the medication ...
  • Impression that the medication is unnecessary ...
  • Financial worries ...
  • Forgetfulness ...
  • Cultural or religious beliefs ...
  • Depression ...
  • Inability to follow treatment ... 

The relative importance of these seven factors vary greatly across different patients, geographies and pathologies. Any effort by the pharmaceutical industry to support patients must first understand what they need, what the specific drivers are for non-adherence in the case of the treatment in question

Consider these faacts:

"US physicians spend on average 16 minuteswith a patient, but only 49 seconds explaining new treatments"

Of those 49 seconds, are spent talking about directions for administration and about side effects, while a clear understanding of side effects before initiating treatment has a positive as opposed to a negative effect on adherence.

Increased adherence to hypertension and cholesterol medicines would reduce healthcare spending by $4 to $5 for every new dollar spent on medicines.

A 10% adherence to asthma medications was associated with a nearly 5% decrease in total annual medical spending.

Patients who take medications as doctors direct may save as much as $7,800 each year.

rob halkes's insight:

The issue of adherence behaviour to therapy by patients begins with the conceptualization of what one understands with it: Is it just an order, or object for discussion, perhaps to tailor it to patients abilities.. Or shouldn't one think that if patients do not as they're told, they must take the consuqeunces...

The report suggests that it is not as simple as that. Necessary to know!

As it is about phama's products, I do think that this is a fundamental tasks to help their clients, the prescribing doctors, to help their patients in this!

No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes!

Riding the Information Technology Wave in Life Sciences - Convergence of Healthcare/Tech - IMS Institute Report

Executive Director Murray Aitken discusses the convergence of healthcare & technology.
See the report at:

Riding the Information Technology Wave in
Life Sciences: Priorities, Pitfalls and Promise

This report provides a view of how the current technology wave—defined in terms of cloud- based storage, new applications, systems integration, and embedded analytics—will be harnessed by life sciences companies in their commercialization activities and why this is necessary for these companies to succeed in bringing innovative diagnostic and treatment options to patients.


Life sciences companies are in the midst of riding the technology wave that has already transformed many industries. They are using technology to bring new types of value to health
systems not only through the quality of scientific innovation but also by understanding current patient treatment pathways to help clarify and support helpful clinical approaches. This is changing the role of life sciences companies and bringing much greater use of technology to commercialization functions.

Key Findings

  • Companies store and process information on core functions of the business, and disseminate that information to internal users in sales, marketing and analytics departments
  • Management teams are turning to technology-based approaches to optimize commercial performance
  • Technology is being utilized as a critical means by which companies can better align their activities across departments, and provide better ability to adjust course and tactics
  • As market pressures reduce the lifetime earnings of medicines, life sciences companies will need to reduce spend within their commercial operations, and use new information technologies to accomplish this
  • For cloud technologies to be used more broadly in the life sciences, this will require improved security and compliance commitments from cloud providers
  • Life sciences companies should investigate ways to gain efficiencies and cost savings through cloud technologies including storage, building platforms, and applications
rob halkes's insight:

The transformation of the way life sciences companies do business in this new century is not easy and certainly not only a matter of technology application. But technology is a sure issue in this transformation. One key condition is the need of a concept of how to do this. Based on such vision the company can pretest (conceptually) whether there is a chance to better outcomes, value to both customers and patients, and a better return, hopefully sustainable, too.

Integration is a key element to this both within and outside the organization. But most of all competence to change must drive it all!

Are life sciences being disrupted too? Surely. It makes it all much easier when "one" would acknowledge this and responses accordingly.

See my writings about it here:

No comment yet.
Rescooped by rob halkes from Pharma Communication & Social Media!

Digital Listening Drives a New Relationship with Doctors

Digital Listening Drives a New Relationship with Doctors | New pharma |

The best customer relationships have always been based on a high level of trust, built upon a strong understanding of real customer needs. Novel digital technologies now enable the pharma industry to efficiently listen to each and every doctor, laying the foundations for success.

True pull-marketing needs individual customer segmentation

For the pharmaceutical industry, digital technology has enabled much more efficient and regular connectivity with its principal customers – the prescribers. But this increased level of dialogue between doctors and pharma is only useful if it is on mutually beneficial terms. Doctors want specific pieces of information, at the right time and via the right channels. The pharma industry wants to ensure doctors are clear on the benefits of its products.

Via Dinesh Chindarkar
rob halkes's insight:

For pharma, there's more to redefine their engagement with doctors, than just listening. I suggested a specific path to develop such:

No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes!

Tech Trends 2014, Social activation

Tech Trends 2014, Social activation | New pharma |
The power of social activation is unleashed when others advocate an organization’s message in their own words to their network.

Over the years, the focus of social business has shifted from measuring volume to monitoring sentiment and, now, toward changing perceptions. In today’s recommendation economy, companies should focus on measuring the perception of their brand and then on changing how people feel, share, and evangelize. Companies can activate their audiences to drive their message outward—handing them an idea and getting them to advocate it in their own words to their own network.

From passive to active tense

Organizations have spent the last several years chasing the tantalizing prospect of “social.” Within the enterprise, social represents a bastion of hope for productivity and collaboration—a chance to effectively navigate who knows what, who knows whom, how work gets done, and how decisions get made. We’re still in the opening frames of a broad wave of social-driven enterprise transformation,1 as a recent study by MIT Sloan Management Review and Deloitte confirms. That study revealed that 69 percent of executives thought social business would be critical to their organizations in the next three years.2

Social businesses3 ideally rally around well-defined business problems, supported by committed communities with well-defined incentives for participation. To take full advantage of this potential, age-old organizational constraints need to be identified and rewired. Hierarchies, biases, standardized operating procedures, rigid job descriptions, and other embodiments of institutional inertia can stunt progress.

Meanwhile, the flurry of activity around external social channels continues. Social media has become a frequent online destination, commanding 27 percent of global time spent on the web.4 Not surprisingly, social monitoring and listening were some of the earlier investments companies made in the social arena. Social efforts leaned on the enabling tools that allowed passive data collection, tracking the volume of surface-level activity and broad-stroke awareness—followers, likes, mentions, and click-throughs to their own corporate channels. As the numbers grew, premature victory was announced. But volume doesn’t tell you much—good, bad, or indifferent.

rob halkes's insight:

Great insights in this Deloitte blog on changing from passive to active use of social media. The more so, while it refers well to the research done by Deloitte in cooperation with MIT Sloan Management Review on the trends of "social" in business. Inspiring!

See also the download of the report!

No comment yet.
Rescooped by rob halkes from 4- PATIENT EMPOWERMENT & E-PATIENT by PHARMAGEEK!

Patient groups don't trust pharma marketing. So what to do? #pharma #hcsmeu

Patient groups don't trust pharma marketing. So what to do? #pharma #hcsmeu | New pharma |
Every year, PatientView takes the temperature of patient groups around the world and delivers its verdict on the pharma business. This time around, survey respondents gave a thumbs-up to drugmakers' innovation and quality. They weren't as impressed, however, with pharma marketing.

Via Lionel Reichardt / le Pharmageek
rob halkes's insight:

This research has also touched on patients' views on the industry. See also the more elaborated findings of the same research by Patient View here

No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes!

Corporate Reputation of Pharma 2013 - The Patient Perspective

Corporate Reputation of Pharma 2013 - The Patient Perspective | New pharma |

Press Releas - See here

[Chech the release for more stats!]

A global survey, conducted mid-November to mid-December 2013 Includes the views of 800 patient groups from 43 countries and differing specialtiesPatient-group feedback on the corporate reputation of the pharma industry during 2013Patient-group feedback on the corporate reputation of 33 pharma companies in 2013Results for 2013 are compared with those of 2012, and 2011

This independent study, funded by PatientView, represents 800 patient groups’ latest impressions on the corporate reputation of 33 individual pharma companies and of the pharma industry as a whole. Results for 2013 are compared with those of 2012 and 2011. For the purposes of this report, the phrase ‘corporate reputation’ is defined as the extent to which pharma companies are meeting the expectations of patients and patient groups. The 33 companies examined 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 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

The pharma industry ranks 7th in the league table of 8 healthcare industries, 2013

35.4% of the respondent patient groups stated that multinational pharma companies had either an “excellent” or “good” reputation in 2013, placing pharma 7th in the league table of healthcare industries, below biotech companies, generic drug manufacturers, non-for-profit health insurers, the private healthcare sector, medical- device companies, and retail pharmacists. Pharma, however, has a better reputation than commercial health insurers, which rank last. The reputation of multinational pharma, as perceived by patient groups, was similar in 2013 to its status in 2012. However, the industry’s result is still well below that reported in 2011. 41% of respondent patient groups stated, at the time, that the pharma industry had an “excellent” or “good” reputation in 2011.

Pharma-industry business activities

Pharma continues to retain a “good”, or sometimes an “excellent”, reputation for innovation, and for the production of useful products (acknowledged by nearly two thirds, 65%-66%, of patient groups). However, only a minority of patient groups said that the industry was “excellent” or “good” at most of its other business activities in 2013. When comparing 2013’s results with those pharma attained during its high point in 2011, significant shortfalls are apparent. The industry still has a way to go to recover position in three areas of business: relationships with the media, ability to have ethical marketing practices, and acting with integrity.

The performance of individual pharma companies for six indicators of corporate reputation, 2013

Indicator 1: patient centricity

At a time when nearly every pharma company is claiming to embrace the patient though new patient-centric strategies, this indicator serves as a useful reminder about just how much progress companies still need to make. Each respondent patient group was asked to name the 3 companies they believed had the best, most- effective patient-centred strategy in 2013.

Indicator 2: high-quality information for patients

Each respondent patient group was asked to name 3 companies they believed provided the best patient information in 2013.

Indicator 3: patient safety

Each respondent patient group was asked to name the 3 companies they believed had the best record for patient safety in 2013.

Indicator 4: high-quality, useful products

Each respondent patient group was asked to name the 3 companies they believed supplied the best, most high-quality products (of most use to patients) in 2013.

Indicator 5: transparency

Each respondent patient group was asked to name the 3 companies they believed had the best record of transparency with healthcare stakeholders in 2013.

Indicator 6: integrity

Each respondent patient group was asked to name the 3 companies they believed had the highest level of integrity in 2013.

The overall performance of individual pharma companies for corporate reputation, 2013 and 2012

Top-10 company rankings for corporate reputation (patient perceptions)

Rank in 2013

- ViiV 1st

- Gilead 2nd

- AbbVie 3rd

- Pfizer 4th

- Janssen 5th

- Roche 6th

- Eli Lilly 7th

- Menarini 8th

- Novartis 9th

- Novo Nordisk 10th

Rising stars in 2013

Three other companies stand out as a result of the significant upward shifts they have made in the corporate-reputation rankings. These are the Italy-based Menarini, which jumped from 19th position in 2012 to 8th in 2013 (up 11 slots); France-headquartered Sanofi, which has moved from 23rd position in 2012 to 15th in 2013 (up 8 places); and the Israel-based generics-come-research firm Teva, which also rose 8 spaces (up from 28th in 2012 to 21st in 2013). Although respondent patient groups do not provide The Corporate Reputation survey with the reasons for their selections, it is possible to speculate that Menarini’s success is due (at least in part) to its rapid corporate expansion programme, with extensive acquisitions and partnerships worldwide. Sanofi, in addition to undergoing significant restructuring, has embraced two sizeable biotech firms, and its delivery of new products and a new patient-centric strategy has been interpreted positively by patient groups. Teva has made patient centricity a cornerstone of its gameplan, and, on the whole, patient groups tend to be more favourably disposed to generics companies than to pharma (because the generics business promotes wider access to drugs for patients than pharma).

Press release from PatientView Page 5 of 5

Two further companies with successful corporate reputations are Roche and Eli Lilly. Both inhabit the top-10 positions, and each has moved up two slots since 2012—Roche from 8th to 6th, and Lilly from 9th to 7th.

Falling stars in 2013

A number of companies (notably Lundbeck and Novartis) have seen their positions decline.

What causes pharma company reputations to rise or fall?

The Corporate Reputation of Pharma ‘league tables’ provide feedback on the patient perceptions of each individual pharma company during one particular year. To enable PatientView to turn these patient perceptions into hard, comprehensible figures, large numbers of patient groups need to be included in the study. 800 patient organisations took the time and effort to complete the survey for 2013. As far as is possible to tell, patient groups are influenced by five main factors when balancing up the reputation of a pharma company:

1. A good portfolio of products that brings hope to people suffering from the medical conditions familiar to the patient group.

2. Media coverage about the company (allied to comments received on the ‘grapevine’ from peer patient groups about the behaviour of a corporate).

3. A sense among the patient group that a company is truly putting patients at the heart of its business approach. The company needs to demonstrate this fact, not simply articulate a desire to be patient centric.

4. A perception among the patient group of a year-on-year positive change in the company’s investment stance across the patient arena—whether it is support for specific patient organisations, for big campaigns, or for patient-centred research.

5. A feeling among the patient group that a company’s relationship with it (and with peer patient groups) can be relied upon to be long, rather than short, term.

Since the circumstances of individual pharma companies can fluctuate significantly, so, too, can their reputations (as perceived by patient groups). An interesting analogy might be with a company’s share price, which can rise or fall reflecting the market’s perception of the health of the company’s financial future.

rob halkes's insight:

Grand developments in Pharma's reputattion among patients!
Needed Information! Check it

No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes!

Managed Markets Operation PatientCentricity

Managed Markets Operation PatientCentricity | New pharma |
As the Affordable Care Act rolls out, the behaviorists at MicroMass surveyed stakeholders about the impact on industry. Jessica Brueggeman sorts out the diverse views and asks Can healthcare reform lead pharma to operationalize its patient focus

Patient centricity. Real-world value. Patient-reported outcomes. These phrases have become a fixture in today's healthcare environment, thanks to the Affordable Care Act. But what do these concepts mean and how are they affecting the way key healthcare stakeholders think and work every day?

To gather a diverse and comprehensive perspective on the impact of healthcare reform on pharma, MicroMass conducted a qualitative research study, speaking with 21 individual healthcare stakeholders, including patients, physicians, practice managers, hospital administrators, marketers, payers and allied healthcare professionals.

The findings highlight a way for pharma to set an industry standard by defining and operationalizing the concept of patient centricity...

New measures of success

Healthcare reform sparks polarizing views among stakeholders...

Amid these views, a commonality is the belief that patient-centricity will yield success. The challenge is in how that is defined. For patients, success centers around a positive experience with staff and providers, being included in treatment decisions and having questions answered. Providers gauge success based on their ability to provide quality care, although definitions of “quality” vary among clinical outcomes, patient satisfaction and practice success/business metrics.

The lack of clarity presents an opportunity for pharma. Unless pharma better aligns itself with patient and provider definitions of success, however, its commercial success could be in jeopardy.

Pharma cannot passively stand by, observing the impact of change. Nor should it expect guidance from non-industry organizations on its role in a value-based environment. ..

The path to patient-centricity

1. Leverage partnerships to establish a consensus definition of patient-centricity ..

2. Re-think the current business model ..


3. Deliver value-based solutions (some examples)


What does it take for pharma to make these leaps? First, we have to set aside the traditional playbook and wait for long-term benefits, to take risks, and to be agile and try new things. Then we have to put aside the desire for complete ownership and engage in true collaboration to share authorship of impactful solutions.

The time is now. Change isn't on the way, it's here...

rob halkes's insight:

Pharma is directed here in fundamental new ways of creating new market approach. I cannot state enough how relevant that is. Howwever, it needs both a new approach to its (key) customers, AND a new approach to its value proposal: integrated offering.

Read everything about it here:

No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes!

Engaging Patients Through Social Media | IMS Institute

Engaging Patients Through Social Media | IMS Institute | New pharma |
IMS's Top 10 Pharma Social Media Engagers

By Ben Comer | Published: January 21, 2014

The IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics worked up a methodology for assessing the effectiveness of pharma’s social media efforts across Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, according to three indices: reach (total number of people reached through each channel via likes, shares and re-tweets); relevance (extent to which content is being shared and forwarded); and relationship (amount of back and forth between company and patient).

Those pharmas hitting the trifecta scored best on the cumulative “Social Media Engagement Index.” Results were tallied over a two-year period. Here are the top ten pharma engagers, per IMS Health. To read the full report, which discusses the role of Wikipedia, healthcare professionals’ use of social media, and a summary of social media regulatory policy in the US, Canada and the EU, click here. And the winners are:


IMS Health Social Engagement Index

1. Johnson & Johnson

2. GlaxoSmithKline

3.Novo Nordisk

4. Pfizer

5. Novartis

6. Boehringer Ingelheim

7. Bayer

8. Merck

9. AstraZeneca

10. UCB

In a separate article, consultants at Capgemini Consulting Life Sciences wonder if social media in pharma has reached a tipping point. PharmExec’s sibling company, CBI, is hosting its annual iPharma conference in New York City this May.

rob halkes's insight:

It says that the self evident suspects have done the trick of social media again. What has it brought to them, besides being positioned in these lists. Has thier image raised for patients and physicians, the public in gerenal? I guess they know it, but we don't see publications of it. Do we?

Indeed there's a tipping point reached in what a pharma company may reach in doing social media in their engagement to the public in general. Now there's the time to develop their information (and promotion) channel in to interactive channels, producing support and collaboration to improve patient care. That is however, a much more challenging demand than using just social media with a multichannel mix. It depends upon their strategic starting point of what pharma wants to do for its commercial development. Now is the move to upper management  ;-)

No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes!

GPs turning to digital for information - PMLiVE

GPs turning to digital for information - PMLiVE | New pharma |

GPs in the UK rate journals, educational materials and events over literature, websites and reps from pharmaceutical companies when it comes to communicating information, according to the 2013 National Medical Readership Survey (MRS).


The survey was intended to determine GPs' attitude to, and use of, print and digital media when it came to their work, with key findings including that speed is of the essence, with online sources increasingly the first port of call for quickly checking clinical information.

Other key values of online for GPs included the ability to look for specific information.

Printed publications still have their place, however, with the survey discovering that GPs value print read for 'longer, serendipitous and more leisurely reading', as well as  to keep up-to-date with developments in clinical practice and for ongoing professional education.

Regarding the medium for information, the survey found that GPs consider search engines the most useful source, following by medical educational materials. Social media for GPs was considered second least useful, ahead of pharmaceutical company and product websites.

The survey also set to find out GP behaviour when it came to the types of information they look at, regardless of the medium. 

The top five information areas were those which fulfil surgery information needs: clinical information on diseases and conditions; information on drugs/treatments and prescribing; clinical guidelines; local protocols; and patient information. 


The 2013 survey included – for the first time – an online element. Combined with the established postal survey, this provided extensive data on the 'media landscape' as used by GPs, and the survey now delivers data on print readership, digital edition/ app usage and website usage.

rob halkes's insight:

Mind you when you're setting up your multichannel communication ;-)

No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes!

The practice of prescribing: Discovering differences in what we tell patients about prescription medications

The practice of prescribing: Discovering differences in what we tell patients about prescription medications | New pharma |

This study explored patient recall of clinician presentation of information about prescription medication, looking specifically for communication patterns and differences by patient individual characteristics and by medication availability type.


A cross sectional survey collected information about 216 patients’ perceptions of clinician presentations of medication information.


Demographically, males recalled receiving more information about reasons, risks, and regimen in medication discussions. By medication type, patients reported receiving more medication information when the clinician presented a prescription-only medication as opposed to a medication that was also available over the counter.


Given the broad and unmonitored use of over-the-counter products, coupled with the increasing awareness of risks associated with many of these medications, it is concerning that patients report receiving less information about these products.

Practice implications

The emphasis on appropriate medication counseling should not be limited to medications available only by prescription. Prescribers should be mindful of these potential tendencies when discussing medications.

rob halkes's insight:

More support seems to be needed in first issue of medicins. Great to see research been done in this respect.

Pharma if you need new added value propostions!

No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes!

IMS Health Study Forecasts Global Spending on Medicines to Reach $1 Trillion Threshold in 2014, Driven by Greater Access | IMS Institute

IMS Health Study Forecasts Global Spending on Medicines to Reach $1 Trillion Threshold in 2014, Driven by Greater Access  | IMS Institute | New pharma |
The Latest News and Stories Related to the IMS Institute

Growth Expected to Accelerate from Low Point in 2013
To 5-7 Percent in 2017; Rising Number of Innovative New Drugs Expected
To be Approved Over Next Five Years

PARSIPPANY, NJ, November 19, 2013 – Greater access to medicines by the world’s rapidly expanding middle class, together with stronger economic prospects in developed nations, will bring total spending on medicines to the $1 trillion threshold in 2014 and to $1.2 trillion by 2017, according to new research released today by the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics.

The report, The Global Use of Medicines: Outlook through 2017, found that growth in global spending on medicines increased 2.6 percent to $965 billion in 2012, and is forecast to grow at a 3-6 percent compound annual rate over the next five years. With new product launches dominated by innovative specialty medicines, particularly for the treatment of cancer, payer concerns about rising costs for these drugs will intensify in both developed and pharmerging markets. Spending on specialty medicines is expected to reach $230-240 billion in 2017, up 38 percent from the $171 billion spent in 2012.

“As we pass the fifth anniversary of the global economic slowdown, and with many countries moving toward universal health coverage, we expect to see continued divergence in growth rates between the pharmerging and developed markets,” said Murray Aitken, executive director of the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics. “Austerity measures aimed at medicine budgets along with the growing availability of lower-cost generics will lead to annual spending growth of 1-4 percent among the markets of North America, Europe and Japan. In contrast, pharmerging nations will experience 10-13 percent spending growth overall – the result of economic expansion, changes in epidemiology and demographics, and greater government and private insurance funding for healthcare.”

In its latest report, the IMS Institute highlights the following findings:

- Structural changes within healthcare systems globally are creating divergent trends ...
- A gradual increase in global medicine spending growth will unfold during the next five years, but remain at modest levels ..
- Specialty and biologic segments of branded medicines will outpace overall spending growth ..
- An average of 35 new medicines with the potential to transform disease treatments is forecast to be launched annually ..



rob halkes's insight:

Great informative publishing.. Specifcally the interactive stats through the App..

No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes!

Competition and Pharmaceuticals - Valérie Paris - 2014 OECD Global ...

This presentation by Valérie Paris was made at the 2014 Global Forum on Competition (27-28 February) during the session on competition issues in the distribution of pharmaceuticals. Find out more at 

rob halkes's insight:

Great research from Valerie Paris, describing different value design process due to pricing/ market price regulations . Is it time to get one standard for Europe?

No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes!

Chats not charts: a three step programme for pharmaceutical postmarketing

Chats not charts: a three step programme for pharmaceutical postmarketing | New pharma |

The air of despondency that is descending over the pharmaceutical industry’s use of social media is perverse.

It has nothing to do with a putative (and also fictive) absence of interest on the patient’s part in connecting with the pharmaceutical industry.

The pharmaceutical industry’s reluctance to utilise social media outside the anodyne contexts of corporate communications is in my opinion ‘perverse’ in its primary sense: it manifests a wilful determination on pharma’s part not to do what is expected or desired of it by patients.

A new agenda

Let’s begin by assuming all drugs in any given disease area are equally efficacious, have the same characteristics, and cost the same.

That is, of course, enough to send any pharmaceutical marketer into a swoon.

They live demonstrate that this is not the case. Or, rather, they lived, past tense, to do so.

However, in social environments (among others) this is the actually-existing state of affairs.

Why? Because in contexts where promotion (i.e. head-to-head studies) is not allowed, pharmaceutical companies must look to other factors to distinguish themselves from their competitors.

Being a visible, reliable, trustworthy participant in conversations on the social web is an ideal place to demonstrate this – and it is possible.

A three point programme to effective pharmaceutical participation in social environments

  1. Be prepared – ensure all colleagues who need to know what you are going to do are aware of and comfortable with your intentions. Do not let your original plan be derailed or diluted, but make your launch plans conservative enough to ensure that you get to the starting line. Focus on building confidence: your biggest challenge will be carrying your plan forward. Drive simplicity through everything you do. Confront challenges as they arise, don’t kick them into the long grass where they will trip you up later. Write a playbook detailing what you’re going to do, where you’re going to do it, and who is going to be doing it. Cover all adverse event and product complaint requirements. Be aware of the fact that you will need to diplomatically serve and correct many educational needs internally around what will and will not happen.
  2. Be candid - be prepared to answer questions from the public as to who you are, what you’re doing, and why you’re doing it. Make a virtue of this.
  3. Be relevant – create distinctive suites of accounts for the disease areas you work in. You’re a pharmaceutical marketer. Be creative. Avoid anything which is or could be construed to be promotional. You’re a pharmaceutical marketer. You know what approvable looks like. Publish appropriate high quality, reliable, relevant information focusing on disease awareness and management. You’re a pharmaceutical marketer. You know where to find this stuff: what’s interesting, and what isn’t; what will reflect well on you indirectly, and what you need to avoid. Reach out to, connect and converse with advocates, healthcare professionals, and societies of interest in your disease area. You’re a pharmaceutical marketer. You know where to find them.

Is it really as easy as this?

Honestly? Yes, and no.

You’ll need to be able to discern and avoid the bumps in the road you will encounter, but such insights only come from experience, and in order to acquire experience, you need to be an active practitioner.

It’s time to start being one.

rob halkes's insight:

Indeed, a must read to the health industry, not just pharma. Andrew stimulates to be as brave to take the journey into practice. Several aspects will come up, but the main thing is to put it through. 

No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes!

Effective pharma-patient interaction requires credible representation within communities

Effective pharma-patient interaction requires credible representation within communities | New pharma |

Every year, the board game community BoardGameGeek (BGG)  holds an annual convention called BGG.con. It’s pretty much paradise for US unplugged gamers: a library of over 3,500 titles, round-the-clock sessions, vendors, and more.

BGG.con is usually held in at the Hyatt Regency Dallas Fort Worth International Airport hotel.

Meet Glenn.

Glenn is a board game fan, and a member of the BGG community.

Glenn is also an employee of the Hyatt hotel and resort chain.

Glenn wants his fellow community members to have a good experience when they visit the place where he works, and proactively reaches out to pre-empt as many issues as it is feasible to address.

BGG community members express their appreciation verbally within the thread he starts, and also shower him with thumbs and ‘geek gold’ (we gamers had a virtual currency long before Bitcoin ;)) ..

What can pharma learn from this?

Let’s start by reviewing the landscape.

I’m hoping that it’s obvious enough to those who haven’t sacrificed their intellect on the altar of madness presided over by the high priests of multi-channel marketing (MCM) that pharmaceutical marketing is undergoing a saltational evolution.

It is happening rapidly.

It is taking place everywhere.

Its effects are already being felt.

Far from rising to the challenge for the most part the pharmaceutical industry has yet even to recognise the changes that are taking place around it, let alone progress beyond acknowledgment through denial, then disdain, then acceptance, and finally to action.

Setting aside the usual conservatism, reticence and risk-aversion that is the industry’s default mode, for the most part pharmaceutical marketers haven’t ‘got what it takes’ to interact authentically with patients.

I don’t mean this in a pejorative sense.

Rather, I mean that they have neither lived with, nor had first-hand experience of the disease areas they work in.

They should consider themselves lucky that this is so.

However, there are plenty of people who, unfortunately, do have the requisite experience: patients.

Hyatt’s Glenn is a trusted, authoritative, respected voice within BGG because he is one of the community.

Pharma needs fully-disclosed patients on the payroll who were community members before they were employees. People who are known, credible, and capable of reducing the gap between the people who make the drugs, and the people who take the drugs.

In order to be plausible, pharma’s claim to be patient focused needs to be borne out in a practitioner-led reality. There need to be patients on the board, patients on brand teams, patients present everywhere the industry is, informing every aspect of its strategic and tactical activities.

Pharma doesn’t just need to ‘listen to the patient voice’; pharma needs to have a patient face. 

That’s asking a lot of the patient, of course. They’re shouldering the burden of responsibility regarding reputation risk.

However, if pharma-patient relations are going to thaw, the industry needs to represent itself within patient communities through patient employees. There’s no other way that it can legitimately take part, anyway.

Regardless of how attractive it may look to the industry in principle, MCM is far from future-proof. Personally, I’d argue that it’s already dead, and that it was always broken as a concept.


Because to speak of the ‘authenticity’ of a message expressly designed to be redistributed in more than one context is a contradiction in terms.

How authentic can an exchange be that is pre-formatted? Shaped, nuanced, with all the colour and life that the spontaneity of reacting to the opinions of others in real time confers wrung out of it?

In concept and in practice, MCM is an anachronism in the social age.

If you don’t accept that, then be prepared to explain why.

MCM may look good in a deck, but arrows and flow charts do not build relationships: people do.

Whilst digital technologies enable global, near-instant one-to-many communications, relationships are still built on a one-to-one basis. In different countries; in local languages; at a national, regional, and local level.

The bigger the Internet and social web becomes, the tighter our focus will need to be on the emerging communities around us.

The global brand plan is now local.

rob halkes's insight:

Patients indeed would be the best advocates to the use of medicines. They are the very persons that are able to speak about the medicine in its practical therapy context.

Great suggestion Andrew! It surely is one of the largest but best changes tot the current health industry.
It will be difficult to them ;-)
As in lots of great changes, the first one who dares, will take the most benefits and will learn the most from doing so. From that will emerge their (needed) profit.
There’s just one thing that we need to ascertain too: how will patient be given free speech and will they be trusted and accepted by the patient communities they relate to?

No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes!

Invigorating biopharma: How the three rules can drive superior performance

Invigorating biopharma: How the three rules can drive superior performance | New pharma |

Though changing industry dynamics may call for a focus on cost containment in the short term, biopharma companies can emerge with new strategies that are again oriented toward non-price value and growth.

The biopharmaceutical industry is at a transformative point in its history. For decades, the industry has had an outstanding run of success, finding therapies for some of the most significant health issues of our time and generating strong returns as a result. These successes, both medical and business, were predicated on a strong model of productive R&D generating innovative products that drove growth and delivered considerable value to patients. Now, however, disruption and challenge are found throughout the industry in its thinning pipelines, expanding lists of stakeholders, narrowing distribution channels, and increasing regulatory and value requirements:

  • Despite an estimated $135 billion spent on R&D by biopharma companies in 2013, few have discovered new drugs with the market potential to replace revenue from those coming off patent.1 Additionally, the changing health care landscape has made it harder to extend the lifetime of billion-dollar drugs through slight modifications.
  • Changes in the health care landscape are also shifting the balance of power away from individual physicians and toward larger provider organizations and other non-traditional stakeholders, including accountable care organizations (ACOs), employers, and advocacy groups. This presents a challenge to traditional biopharma company marketing models.
  • The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), along with increasing scrutiny from commercial payers, are altering traditional payment models. New drugs that do not provide demonstrated comparative effectiveness or increased value over existing drug therapies will likely not be reimbursed at favorable price levels.

The industry is not at a standstill and is far from losing its profitability, but the pace of growth has slowed (figure 1) and margins have shrunk, causing biopharma leaders to consider how to best position their companies for success. The attractive business environment of the 1990s and 2000s is gone and in its place, a more complex, less certain, and likely more volatile operating environment has emerged.

As this situation has unfolded, ... read on here

rob halkes's insight:

The Pharma industry needs a reorientation to its total business: not an easy thing to do. The more so, while it has been performing the same routine in business for the past two decades at least.

Do Pharma top managers know their own inhibitions? Would they recognize when they misperceive old certainties as "quality for tomorrow"?
It will be a hard task for them - but one needs to change.. I wish them all best of success with this.

No comment yet.
Rescooped by rob halkes from Pharma!

Five things big pharma can learn from the rare disease community

Five things big pharma can learn from the rare disease community | New pharma |

Companies in the rare disease space have learned lessons big pharma can use too:


1. Patient engagement starts in clinical trials

2. Silence isn't safe

3. Support must go beyond the brand

4. Don't wait for a crisis

5. True innovation begins with outcomes

Via Andrew Spong
rob halkes's insight:

We can guide pharma to innovate, but they must implement it themselves .. ;-)

Andrew Spong's curator insight, March 6, 1:16 AM

A lovely piece by Wendy White from last week. Recommended.

Gary Monk's curator insight, March 6, 9:00 AM

Interesting article

MyHealthShare's curator insight, March 8, 4:00 AM

Five things big pharma can learn from the rare disease community | @andrewspong

Scooped by rob halkes!

The third dimension in edetailing to pharma | Health Business Consult

The third dimension in edetailing to pharma | Health Business Consult | New pharma |

Health care professionals have more experience in selecting and processing digital information than the industry has experience in making it! Whereas information for healthcare professionals is basically about reliable and valid information, the format of it should be both appealing and interactively enough to gain and hold the interest of the professionals.


Indeed: “Pharma companies are far from realizing their App market potential,” is the conclusion of research done. See here. Seven in ten doctors even have a self-tracking patient, says Manhattan reserach, quoted here. See some other statistics on tele- and mhealth here. Health care is moving towards integrated care in eHealth: 76% of Patients Would Choose Telehealth Over Human Contact with their care provider! (survey).


There is a definite expectation among health care professionals about the impact of digital information to the quality of care. Beyond information on the drug itself, one is definitely in need of information about both background and consequences of using the drug in the perspective of practice of care: how would the drug facilitate the process of care, patients’ compliance, outcome of care and both patients’ and physicians’ satisfaction with their use.


Based upon the survey results above, one would like to add the third dimension: development!
Development of dynamic edetails is more crucial than to produce a good looking app. Apps need to further interactivity and engagement. They must stimulate the journey of the professional through the information about the drug, leading to connectedness both for persons of reference and for further information. Indeed the very relationship with other (multichannel) sites and communications is relevant to the attractiveness to target professionals.


But still another aspect is crucial to success in the long run: how does the organization respond to the challenges that edetailing poses to the firm’s current routines of promotion? Creating an app is one. But to handle it in promotion to doctors and other health professionals demands internal training and organization.

..It means that the design of the app and its use needs to follow the pace of individual learning and of internal change and development; a change that would also relate to development of internal culture of orientation: from an “inside-out product orientation”, to an “outside-in orientation on best practice of therapy”!

rob halkes's insight:

Read it :-)

Creating an app is one. But to handle it in promotion to doctors and other health professionals demands internal training and organization...It means that the design of the app and its use needs to follow the pace of individual learning and of internal change and development;..

No comment yet.
Rescooped by rob halkes from Social Business in Health!

Integration should be the trend of health care development 2014 | Health Business Consult

Integration should be the trend of health care development 2014 | Health Business Consult | New pharma |

Health care is very much „in transition”. Have a quick look at the trends in health care 2014 . Now, try to predict what the outcomes will be of all these well intended developments?
Due to changes in structure of processes, organizations, patients’ journeys, devices, drugs, apps, telemonitoring – health care will run the risk of becoming highly fragmented, maybe even chaotic. Let’s hope that professionals and their patients still do know their way around.

Can this be prevented? As costs will drive change for the coming years, I guess not. Health care is fundamentally being transformed. Why? Because it has been righteously disrupted and it will take time before a new satisfactory system has emerged. Do we need to wait for that? No! We have to see how we can construe things in a more informed perspective. ..

..there is a sure direction to give that constitutes the basic principle for moving forward: both because it is immanent to all needed developments to better care, and because it creates the opportunity to developments in oversee-able steps of change. Every party can draw its own choice on this to design a proper blue print to their process of change.

This principle directive is: Integrate, integrate, integrate.

Integration in care is about the unification of both parties and activities, aided by technology, devices, information and medications, to create better care for health and its outcomes.
Integration will lead to better connections of different partners who are needed for a specific path or process of care. It will stimulate collaboration and coordination of activities between them. They will aim for better outcomes and higher effectiveness of care. It will lead to opportunities for more efficient arrangements of expertise and allocation of capacity of care givers.
With the compound of the interests of the key players in care (and I mean of course, patients included), costs can be more rationally arranged and may lead to lowering prices of care per patient per year. Also, it will inspire higher transparency of processes and clarity to patients about details of the caring activities themselves.

There are three different kinds of integration. Each, open to start with. So, any party may pick and start its own game changer. Even any couple of parties as intended partners, may do so too. Choose the most easiest entry to your future development together and enjoy the ride!

1. Integration by Co-Operation
2. Integration by Co-Creation. 3. Integration by “Experience Co-Creation”.


rob halkes's insight:


Sven Awege's curator insight, February 28, 2:15 AM

Excellent read to understand the complexities :-)

Marcia Marinho's curator insight, March 8, 3:31 AM

interoperabilidade é a palavra chave em saúde hoje.

Web2Doctors's curator insight, March 15, 7:51 AM

interoperabilidade é a palavra chave em saúde hoje.

Scooped by rob halkes!

Twitter Recognizes Boehringer Ingelheim | HealthWorks Collective

Twitter Recognizes Boehringer Ingelheim | HealthWorks Collective | New pharma |

With its use of Twitter, Boehringer Ingelheim has cut a path through the long grass for the rest of the pharmaceutical industry. ..

It is great to therefore see the first business case study from the pharmaceutical industry appear on the website, featuring the work that social media pioneer Boehringer Ingelheim has been doing in using the social media channel to connect with other healthcare stakeholders.

The specific case study presented by Twitter is from the #COPDchat tweetchats that Boehringer Ingelheim has been running, but could equally have covered its engaging work in the atrial fibrillation or lung cancer space (which I am proud to have been involved in). ...

And the results?

Well, the quantitative stats are pretty impressive. 1.7m tweetchat impressions from the hour’s live event, almost 500 mentions of Boehringer at the Congress and 1,200 new followers secured.

But the real story here is in the qualitative feedback gained from this tweetchat, and the numerous others Boehringer has run. Through such discussion the company gained valuable feedback on the market, which was spur-of-the-moment and reactive to developments at the Congress itself, in addition to opening doors with new organisations and individuals that can help its mission in the COPD space.

Twitter identified three key lessons from Boehringer’s work on tweetchats for other pharmaceutical companies:

  1. Align such online discussion with relevant offline events, like the Congress.
  2. Involve key internal stakeholders to ensure regulatory compliance.
  3. Be innovative – don’t be afraid to be the first in your sector rather than waiting for others.

With such prominence, quite rightly so, being given to Boehringer’s work it is time for other pharma companies to step up and also start driving such activities. Every pharma company is talking about being customer- and patient-focussed, and indeed the individuals working within these companies are passionate about making a difference, so communications teams need to start facilitating more of this work.

rob halkes's insight:

Great to see a business case from a Pharma company using Twitter as one of its channels. It comes not cheap but there're the results too.

Congrats to John Pugh social media expert at Boehringer Ingelheim, thanks for the blog: Paul Tunnah, pharmaphorum

No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes!

Social Media: Have We Reached the Tipping Point?

Social Media: Have We Reached the Tipping Point? | New pharma |

Has tipping point for social media in pharma finally arrived? By Rio Longacre and David Mun, with special thanks to Timothy Moore.

It’s no big secret the pharmaceutical industry lags way behind other sectors when it comes to leveraging social media to meet business objectives. A big reason for this has long been a lack of clear guidelines from FDA.

This month FDA released its draft guidance on the use of “Interactive Promotional Media,” ending several years of speculation and finally providing the industry with substantial guidance on its use of digital media. Though this draft guidance document is currently being distributed for comment purposes only, for the first time it sets out a clear position on tools and technologies that allow for real-time communications and interactions, which includes social media.

In the new guidelines, FDA explains that pharma firms should identify the parts of websites that are interactive and allow for real-time communications, in addition describing its communications within these third-party sites. On a monthly basis, marketers will also need to submit a Form FDA 2253 or Form FDA 2301 for websites that include interactive or real-time communications. To facilitate the submission process, FDA will allow multiple sites and the corresponding documents within a single form — a stark departure from its policies governing static promotional pieces.  ...

Many feel this recent news will mean the proverbial tipping point has been reached, and pharma will finally take the plunge in social media. If so it will certainly be about time, as social media has become pervasive in our lives and, let’s face it, pharma is coming more than fashionably late to this party.

According to a recent Pew Internet study, as of September of last year 73% of online adults use social networking sites. As of 2012, close to three-quarters of Fortune 500 companies were active on Twitter, with more than 80% of executives at these firms believing social media engagement actually led to increased sales. Across industries, an astounding 93% of marketers report they use social media for business.

Despite years of exposure and ample case studies of success from other sectors, however, most pharma companies don’t currently have much of a social media strategy and the vast majority enjoys a rudimentary presence at best. To drive home this fact, in a recent survey more than 90% of 88 executives representing Big Pharma firms said “no” when asked: Does your company engage potential or current customers via social media?

By and large, pharma companies have been extremely conservative in their approach to social media. In addition to a lack of clear guidelines, many firms have kept the medium at arm’s length due mainly compliance concerns related to Adverse Event reporting and potential off-label discussion between reps and patients taking place in a public forum...

While this strategy may have kept stakeholders in compliance happy, generally speaking it has been extremely short-sighted and resulted in significant missed opportunities for the industry in terms of branding and generating goodwill with its customers. If anything, it has helped fuel the perception of an industry more concerned with protecting itself from liability than responding to the needs and concerns of its customers.

On the face of it, pharma is not alone in being heavily regulated. ...

Relative to the US, in the EU pharma companies, in collaboration with regulators, are making greater efforts to leverage social media to monitor adverse events. More specifically, the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) has been created in the aim to build electronic reporting platforms and mobile apps to enable patient reporting of adverse events to regulatory authorities themselves. One can certainly speculate whether these practices will make their way over the Atlantic.

When reviewed in its entirety, it’s not difficult to conclude that compliance issues alone fail to explain fully pharma’s disdain for the medium. If nothing else, a significant reason for the industry’s hands-off approach most likely stems from pervasive skepticism of the channel’s overall benefit for an industry that generally does not usually have direct relationships with its end-customers.

In light of evolving consumer preferences, this argument looks increasingly silly and out of date. Pharma must accept the fact the relationship it enjoys with its customers doesn’t take place in a vacuum. Its customers are also customers of firms in other industries, and consequently bring a high level of service expectations based on these other non-pharma interactions. In terms of providing a positive and rewarding customer experience, pharma is now competing with these brands and must attempt to live up to the lofty standards they set.

And let’s face it, consumers are talking about pharma companies whether they are using social media or not. And believe it or not, pharma’s customers actually want pharma to play a bigger role in social media-sphere. As proof, Manhattan Research recently reported that 42% of online consumers think pharma companies should be involved in online health communities.

Now that social media guidelines are falling into place, in coming months we can probably expect to see a growing shift in mentality across the industry as firms recalibrate their marketing strategy to include a social component. Due to heavy regulations and ever-present compliance concerns, of course, jumping on the social media bandwagon will still require a measured and deliberate approach. But it will require an approach nevertheless...!


rob halkes's insight:

Noway back now for pharma to engage with the public through several channels AND to define what thier intention is with it.

Simple as that, but not easily implemented. In fact, it relates directly to the way the commercial appriach is redefined. If not, I fear the shale out in the market will hit.. ;-)

No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes!

J&J sets new pharma standard for sharing clinical trial data

J&J sets new pharma standard for sharing clinical trial data | New pharma |
Chooses Yale to act as independent trial data request review body
rob halkes's insight:

It's an issue: trials and partnering with relevant parties to get it running. No easy way to set partnerships without a clear view on the way one wnats to go forward with it on line. J&J seems to have found one solution here.

No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes!

Tablet detailing - PMLiVE

Tablet detailing - PMLiVE | New pharma |

t's taken a while for our industry to get on board, but it appears that tablet detailing has finally arrived. One in three details is conducted via an iPad or similar device, according to Hall & Partners research, and of our clients that have yet to embrace this evolution most say they plan to do so soon. ..

However, how much thought are we giving to this new technology? Often we hear that the edict has come from 'on high' … “We are going digital!” our clients tell us. But when we sit down to consider what this really means, conversations are often focused on the format and execution, rather than the potential for interaction offered by the new detailing medium. 

This approach sells tablet detailing short. Tablet details are visually appealing and novel, they hold vast amounts of data and offer the potential for animation and video. All good stuff, but they also provide the perfect tool to deepen customer relationships. ..

we often see that the approach to sales interactions via tablet detailing hasn't kept pace with this new reality. In 2014 we should be looking to change this.
Meeting customer expectations
Our research shows that customers have increased expectations of a tablet detail - associating the medium with innovation and interactivity. However, customer experiences of tablet detailing reveal it is perceived to offer no benefit over paper-based detailing in eliciting interest in the brand or encouraging follow-up with the rep. Pharmaceutical industry marketers and communications agencies tell a similar story of paper-based details all too often simply converted to tablet format, overlooking the opportunity the tablet provides to allow us to achieve so much more in our customer interactions...

So far we are only scratching the surface of what tablets offer in building a more holistic picture of our customers....

rob halkes's insight:

Indeed, we have seen nothing yet. In my oerceotion: pharmaceutical companies are still wrestling what or what not to do with tablets.

This is a matter of sketching your development path to a richer and more rewarding use of tablets, also in looping back information you want, can deal with and will not frustrate your customers, while they didn't hear about you anymore ;-)

See my vision it here:

If you need a workshop to create this path of development for you, look here:

You're welcome to inform to me specifically, for a tailored worskhop to your needs!

No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes!

2015 Pharma Rep Experience


A perspective on the big trends that are changing pharmaceutical sales and the new best practices and opportunities those trends inspire.

At the Health Experience Project, we believe the right experience can change everything. Every day, the Health Experience Project explores the experiences that are changing outcomes for people, for professionals, and for brands. In this report, we’ve curated some of our most important findings from the frontlines. Inside, you’ll find the big trends that are changing pharmaceutical sales and the new best practices and opportunities those trends are inspiring.

Designing the Pharma Rep Experience for 2015 brings together research from the Health Experience Project, GSW, and other experts across our industry. SECONDARY RESEARCH FROM: Manhattan Research, ZS Associates, PwC, Booz Allen Hamilton, Accenture, Hay Group, INSEAD, IBM, Deloitte Special thanks to our core contributors: Alex Brock, Bill Robinson, Dawn Marinacci, Joy Hart, Kevin Coleman, Leigh Householder, Matt Cash, Michael Krohn, Nick Bartlett, Ritesh Patel, Ryan Deshazer, Tyler Durbin HANDS ON EXPERIENCES WITH: RepLab: Exclusive think tank that brings together field reps from our contract sales team with iQ, our product development lab Rep rides: Accumulated experience from over 100 rep rides around the world Global digital collaborative: 62 specialists from across our global network committed to innovation

rob halkes's insight:

At the Health Experience Project, we believe the right experience can change everything. Every day, the Health Experience Project explores the experiences that are changing outcomes for people, for professionals, and for brands. In this report, we’ve curated some of our most important findings from the frontlines. Inside, you’ll find the big trends that are changing pharmaceutical sales and the new best practices and opportunities those trends are inspiring.

Designing the Pharma Rep Experience for 2015 brings together research from the Health Experience Project, GSW, and other experts across our industry. SECONDARY RESEARCH FROM: Manhattan Research, ZS Associates, PwC, Booz Allen Hamilton, Accenture, Hay Group, INSEAD, IBM, Deloitte Special thanks to our core contributors: Alex Brock, Bill Robinson, Dawn Marinacci, Joy Hart, Kevin Coleman, Leigh Householder, Matt Cash, Michael Krohn, Nick Bartlett, Ritesh Patel, Ryan Deshazer, Tyler Durbin HANDS ON EXPERIENCES WITH: RepLab: Exclusive think tank that brings together field reps from our contract sales team with iQ, our product development lab Rep rides: Accumulated experience from over 100 rep rides around the world Global digital collaborative: 62 specialists from across our global network committed to innovation .

No comment yet.