New pharma
11.5K views | +0 today
Scooped by rob halkes
onto New pharma!

Patient Education Report Patients on Call

Savvy, influential patients have pharmas attention and are growing relationships with industry. How firms have just begun to tap the potential of this emerging segment


While many pharma and device firms remain on the sidelines, understandably so, the lure of gaining a rapport with patients on social networks is reason enough for some to venture forth, despite the unknowns.

Over the past year or so, the role of patients as an influence and information channel for pharma has blossomed. Experts on the trend say it's comparable to the rise of key opinion leaders (KOLs) in the physician world—doctors, typically from academic medicine, who reach out to other physicians likely to prescribe a product.

Two main groups of patient advocates have experience with ­products. The first receives training from boutique  agencies like HealthTalker and Snow Companies, which specialize in word-of-mouth communications and use the real-life stories of patients to deliver marketing messages.
The second and perhaps most visible segment of patient advocates are those, like Hernandez and Sparling in the diabetes realm or Dave deBronkart (aka e-Patient Dave) in cancer, who are especially adept at creating content.
The foremost bloggers have become, effectively, small communications firms unto themselves, says Jack Barrette, founder and CEO of Wego Health, an online patient network that also acts as a liaison between its “health activists” and pharma to create educational programs.
“[The high-profile advocates and bloggers] want to communicate very valuable content and have created an agency structure—they're professionals, in a good way, and have managed to carve out areas where they can be seen as agency-like,” Barrette says.
Beyond that top layer is a group who also blog but don't necessarily support themselves through their advocacy. It's that group, which Barrette calls the health activist middle class, that companies are now learning from: “They're so powerful because their numbers are so vast, and they're trusted because they're not semi-professionals.”
There's a third tier online, “who don't even consider themselves patients,” observes Wendy Blackburn, EVP, Intouch Solutions. Around a third of US adults use social media as a health resource, according to a 2012 survey of 1,060 US adults by PricewaterhouseCoopers, and most probably fall into this third group.
“It's someone who maybe just got diagnosed and doesn't even realize there's this discussion we're having about pharma and social media,” says Blackburn. “They just go online for information.”
Participation is not without its pitfalls. For instance, sources say patient-generated content is vulnerable to the same creative restrictions as most healthcare marketing.

Marketers playing in social media also need to stay vigilant and ride the waves of the shifting digital landscape, such as when Facebook abruptly changed course in 2011 and forced pharma pages to open their walls to user comments, prompting several drugmakers to shutter theirs rather than commit to 24/7 monitoring of posts.

“If pharma can drive patients to accurate information, it furthers the goal of optimizing treatment experience and promoting adherence,” says Tara Rice, manager of health education for the agency HealthEd. Rice points to a 2012 Wolters Kluwer survey that found 65% of people who turn to the internet with medical questions say they trust the information they find, “which is scary, because there's a lot of inaccurate information online.”

Nevertheless, patient advocates and some pharma and device companies seem to be finding ways to work together.

rob halkes's insight:

Great overview and insight information. The patient education report (download too) A way to go: essential to pharma as a trusted source of information, i.e. if handled from a disease nd medical perspective, not by a commercial one. So, tricky, but surely worthwhile!

No comment yet.
Pharma's struggle for a new commercial model
Curated by rob halkes
Your new post is loading...
Scooped by rob halkes!

The Globalisation of the Pharmaceutical Industry – IFPMA

The Globalisation of the Pharmaceutical Industry – IFPMA | New pharma |
IFPMA » The Globalisation of the Pharmaceutical Industry

Comprehensive study (Open Access see downloads) to update your insights into the industry.


rob halkes's insight:

Last November published in Open Access, The Gloablisation of the Pharmaceutical Industry. Editors J.L Valverde and Eduardo Pisani. IFPMA

No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes!

Lifetime Trends in Biopharmaceutical Innovation Recent Evidence and Implications

Lifetime Trends in Biopharmaceutical Innovation Recent Evidence and Implications | New pharma |
This report profiles the NASs launched in the U.S. over the past 20 years and measures the length of a molecule’s lifetime from patent filing to launch and eventual patent expiry. It also explores the significant variations in this lifetime when viewed by molecule characteristics such as therapy area, orphan drug status, and the type of companies involved in the development and marketing.

Take a look at some of the coverage from the event in The Scientist, American Journal of Managed Care, and The Pharma Letter.

rob halkes's insight:

Relevant Insights into the development in lifetime characteristics of biopharmaceutical substances: only relative few outliers that make a quick retunr about 1$ billion a year (within 5 years after launch) Modest levels of average return (less than $100 billion) a year for 62% of launches in the past 20 years. The commercial returns for a small number of outlier molecules areoutsized but rare, while a substantial number of molecules baing launches achive levels of commercial success that fall far below threshold levels of economic return.

Take a look at some of the coverage from the event in The Scientist, American Journal of Managed Care,

No comment yet.
Rescooped by rob halkes from Digital Disruption in Pharma!

GSK and MIT Team Up to Test Flumoji - an Android App That May Provide RWE in Clinical Trials

GSK and MIT Team Up to Test Flumoji - an Android App That May Provide RWE in Clinical Trials | New pharma |

Flumoji is your health wizard. Tell it how you feel and it will magically learn how to help protect you from Flu and other ailments.

This MIT study is designed to help increase awareness of the spread of flu and flu-like symptoms and educate you on how to reduce the risk of -- and help prevent -- flu infection. Your data along with other users of the app could potentially improve overall health outcomes in the general population.


Flumoji is being tested by MIT and GSK to see if it can speed up identification of flu outbreaks.


“Real-time tracking of seasonal flu outbreaks is key,” says GSK on Facebook. “However, researchers have yet to find a tracking mechanism that’s fast and reliable enough to support testing of potential #flu treatments in clinical trials.”

Via Pharma Guy
rob halkes's insight:

RWE (real world evidence) and RWD (-data) bear the promise that we find context conditions and personal factores needed for #precisionmedicine ! It takes more to "tango" however, so it is good to see how initial collaborations begin to find ground!

Scooped by rob halkes!

Diversity in clinical trials: An issue that we can no longer ignore

Diversity in clinical trials: An issue that we can no longer ignore | New pharma |

In a blog post in early 2016, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Dr. Robert M. Califf shared the agency’s intent to make 2016 “The Year of Diversity in Clinical Trials.” In doing so, Califf acknowledged FDA’s awareness that certain groups of patients may respond differently to different therapies and that “a wide range of people should have the opportunity to participate in trials, both for access to new therapies and to have the chance to contribute to better treatment of everyone.”

As FDA notes, minorities—along with the elderly and women—have historically been underrepresented in clinical trials. African-Americans, for example, comprise 13.2 percent of the population, but only 5 percent of clinical trial participants, while Hispanic patients represent 16 percent of the population, but just 1 percent of participants. Meanwhile, Caucasians account for 67 percent of the population and 83 percent of research participants.


Similarly, certain classes of hypertension drugs have recently been found to be less effective in African-American patients, while African-Americans with a certain common genetic variation require lower doses of the blood thinner warfarin compared with Caucasian patients.

The inclusion of multiple ethnicities is essential in the clinical trial process for these reasons, and also because all patients should have equal access to opportunities for advanced care funded by clinical trial sponsors.

Getting to the root of the problem

The two primary reasons for low participation rates in clinical trials among minorities are feelings of mistrust among potential participants and an overall lack of awareness due to inefficient recruiting methods. Both of these issues need to be addressed to begin moving the dial on recruitment and enrollment of minority patients.

The mistrust is based on a well-documented history of unethical clinical research, especially the U.S. Public Health Service’s Tuskegee syphilis study. The study induced 600 African-American men to participate in various experiments over a 40-year period. Participants who were diagnosed with syphilis were never informed of their condition, nor were they offered treatment. Many died of the disease, infected their wives, and/or passed congenital syphilis to their children. As a result, residual mistrust of clinical trials remains today among many members of the African-American community.

Unfortunately, even though awareness of the need for more minority patients in clinical research has increased, traditional clinical trial recruiting methods have not been effective in terms of increasing the pool of minority participants. In fact, traditional recruitment methods that rely heavily on direct-to-consumer marketing such as Google ads and billboards to attract patients are failing to keep pace with trial demands in general—regardless of ethnic background. They fall even shorter when it comes to ensuring clinical trial diversity. Even with the widespread use of radio, television, and social media, nearly 70 percent of all clinical trials experience delays as a result of recruitment issues.

How we can do a better job together

As an industry, we need to do a better job informing potential participants of all racial and ethnic backgrounds about available clinical trials. At the company I lead, ePatientFinder, we have found that getting physicians more involved in the recruiting process, rather than relying on direct-to-consumer marketing, encourages greater patient access and participation. We recognize that community physicians have historically had little visibility into active studies, and we also have learned that patients are more likely to participate in clinical trials if their doctor recommends them.

The wide-spread adoption of EHRs and the growing availability of sophisticated analytics is making it easier to leverage the trusted physician-patient relationship and more accurately and quickly identify protocol-eligible patients. Physicians can leverage these tools to identify potentially life-changing (or even life-saving) trials in the patient’s geographic area that offer opportunities for advanced care. Of course, this needs to be done in an HIPAA-compliant way, with patients opting in to have their medical records analyzed and matched with specific studies in their area for which they may be eligible, including any related to patient race and ethnicity. Patient outreach coordinators can then work with their physicians to pre-quality patients and connect them with the trial sponsors or contract research organizations (CROs) that are enrolling patients.

Increasing access through bilingual initiatives

This targeted approach is of particular value to patients who are non-native English speakers and who may have difficulty understanding the direct-to-patient recruitment messages that often appear in television commercials or in Internet ads. My company has started taking steps to increase access and break down barriers for minority patients who are not fluent in English, starting with Spanish-speaking patients. Some initiatives that are increasing access for these patients include offering screening questionnaires in both English and Spanish and hiring bilingual patient outreach coordinators to work directly with native Spanish-speakers. Patients are then able to discuss potential trial opportunities in Spanish and have a bilingual coordinator assist them in the enrollment process.

Greater access for greater understanding

Greater diversity in clinical trials is critical not only as related to equal access but also for understanding the full impact of different therapies and for ensuring their safety and effectiveness for people of all racial backgrounds. The best ways to achieve this are to increase access and awareness by adopting innovative approaches to patient recruitment that center on the trusted physician-patient relationship and leveraging EHRs and analytics to identify qualified patients.


rob halkes's insight:

"Precision Medicine" is one influence that will impact the way pharma is performing its R&D. There are more, like doing studies in real world conditions, delivering details about why a medicine in practice performs or not. But there are more challenges, like partnering with other industries and getting support and partnerships from the tech world, e.g. to dliver fine tuning diagnostics. The pharma world will not be a dull place to work in, in 2017. Results don't come easy. ;-)

No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes!

Moving Beyond the Pill in the Healthcare Sector - eMarketer

Mobile is encouraging healthy behavior

Pharmaceutical manufacturers, payers and healthcare providers (HCPs)—as well as a host of tech-focused newcomers—are exploring digital programs that complement standard therapies and hold promise to keep patients healthier and produce better outcomes. Known as “beyond-the-pill” or “around-the-pill” services, they have been a long time coming, and may finally be gaining traction, according to a new eMarketer report,“US Healthcare Beyond the Pill: Digital Tech and New Partnerships Bring New Life to the Industry” (eMarketer PRO customers only).
























For the past several years, healthcare and pharma firms have been trying, with mixed success, to step up their beyond-the-pill programs. Early efforts included basic informational websites and simple apps designed to provide information about medical conditions and therapies.

“When the pharma industry first moved into digital technology, it was primarily in the marketing space, leveraging things like websites or HCP portals to share product information and to educate,” said Amy Landucci, head of digital medicine at Novartis. “But in the last three years, we’ve seen a pretty big shift away from just doing digital marketing—though it’s still very important—to looking at how technology can help enhance patient outcomes.”

Today’s beyond-the-pill solutions can collect, monitor and analyze health-related information, track patient activity, improve medication adherence, provide personalized decision support, predict medical crises and streamline medical care using a variety of advanced computing techniques. Mobile technology, the IoT and AI are three of the technologies making this possible.

Read one here


rob halkes's insight:

Pharma started about thinking in terms of servicing health care "beyond the pill" in about 2000. Today developments have been increased by ideas of 'integrated care' and "precision medicine" the latest concept indicates fine tuning of medications to personal physical and genome conditions. Diagnostics are all in the game, that is. But a study in which I participated [ ] made clear that development and creation is one, servicing and delivering is two. Partnerships for example are unavoidable is one in in the game for sustainable business.

No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes!

The World's Most Reputable Pharmaceutical Companies In 2016

The World's Most Reputable Pharmaceutical Companies In 2016 | New pharma |
Like in most industries, players in the pharmaceutical world get a boost when customers the world over feel that they are innovators, act responsibly and are, generally speaking, a force for good. Recently a survey was published scoring exactly how good people in developed countries all over the world feel about big pharma.
rob halkes's insight:

Just discovered the global pharma reputation ranking by the Reputation Institute. Based on 7 dimensions of reputation, defined by the institute, the companies were evaluated by respondents around the world. These were "Products&Services, Innovation, Workplace,Governance, Citizenship, Leadership and Performance". See the RepTrak Institute here

PatientView however has studied the global reputation of pharma companies in the perspective of patients and patient groups since 2011! See here.  Their respondents were also distinguished by those who state to be familiar with a company and  those who really worked with a company, which generates interesting data! PatientView is now preparing data such that companies can retrieve their bespoke ranking data to see how their reputation in the perspective of patients can further be improved

Pharma Guy's curator insight, January 2, 10:27 AM

NOTE: One trend pharmaceutical companies should take note of is the tendency of respondents to be uninformed or neutral about what companies actually do in certain areas. According to the survey, 12% of respondents did not have knowledge or opinion about the companies’ overall performance. Meanwhile, 11% had no knowledge of companies’ citizenship activities (promoting good causes and protecting the environment) and 14% didn’t know anything about the workplaces of the firms they were asked to score.

Rescooped by rob halkes from Pharmaguy's Insights Into Drug Industry News!

High Rx Drug Prices? We’re Not to Blame Say Payers & Our Unbiased Poll Proves It!

High Rx Drug Prices? We’re Not to Blame Say Payers & Our Unbiased Poll Proves It! | New pharma |

While numerous congressional inquiries have purported to seek solutions or culprits for rising prescription drug prices, the American people appear to be placing the blame squarely on the laps of prescription drug manufacturers, according to a new survey released by the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA).


That survey, conducted for PCMA by North Star Opinion Research, found that three quarters of voters say the cost of prescription drugs is too high, and 55 percent said that drug companies are most to blame for high drug costs.


Mark Merritt, president of PCMA, which represent the nation’s pharmacy benefit management (PBM) companies, pointed out that only 7 percent of Americans blame his association’s industry for high drug prices, despite the brand prescription drug manufacturers’ attempts to shift the blame to PBMs (read “Pharma CEO Rips Insurance CEOs a New One! Exposes Salaries, Blames Them for High Drug Prices”: and Tracking Who Makes Money On A Brand-Name Drug”:


Further Reading:

  • “Kaiser Health Tracking Poll: Americans Weigh In on How to Keep Drug Costs Down”:
  • “Tracking Who Makes Money On A Brand-Name Drug”:
  • “Time's Person of the Year Donald Trump Promises He Will ‘Bring Down Drug Prices’”:
  • “Pharma CEO Rips Insurance CEOs a New One! Exposes Salaries, Blames Them for High Drug Prices”:

Via Pharma Guy
rob halkes's insight:

Drug pricing is not an one sided action. There are at least two parties need to buy and sell. In health, it is more complicated: government, payers and other institutions are involved in the pre market reimbursement discussion. So, can a simple survey find the truth of the game? A more just approach is to discuss and see how multi-disciplinary partnership in healthcare can raise quality, outcomes and satisfaction and save costs. 

No comment yet.
Rescooped by rob halkes from Pharmaguy's Insights Into Drug Industry News!

Four Companies - Including Criminal Valeant - Raked Over the Coals for Staggering Price Hikes by Senate Report

Four Companies - Including Criminal Valeant - Raked Over the Coals for Staggering Price Hikes by Senate Report | New pharma |

Staggering hikes — in some cases higher than 5000%— in prices of prescription drugs threaten the health and economic stability of Americans who can't afford vital medicines, a congressional report warned Wednesday.


The findings by the Senate Special on Aging summarize the panel's 2016 investigation of records from four pharmaceutical companies and public hearings that focused on sudden price spikes in decades-old medications and the pricing decisions imposed by drug industry entrepreneur Martin Shkreli and other industry executives.


Turing Pharmaceuticals and Retrophin (RTRX), two firms once headed by Shkreli, embattled drugmaker Valeant Pharmaceuticals International (VRX) and Rodelis Therapeutics are among companies that dramatically raised prices on some decades-old, off-patent drugs they acquired and controlled through monopoly business models, the report said.


The Committee discovered that each of the four companies followed a business model (with some variation) that enabled them to identify and acquire off-patent sole-source drugs over which they could exercise de facto monopoly pricing power, and then impose and protect astronomical price increases. The business model consists of five central elements:


  • Sole-Source. The company acquired a sole-source drug, for which there was only one manufacturer, and therefore faces no immediate competition, maintaining monopoly power over its pricing.
  • Gold Standard. The company ensured the drug was considered the gold standard—the best drug available for the condition it treats, ensuring that physicians would continue to prescribe the drug, even if the price increased.
  • Small Market. The company selected a drug that served a small market, which were not attractive to competitors and which had dependent patient populations that were too small to organize effective opposition, giving the companies more latitude on pricing.
  • Closed Distribution. The company controlled access to the drug through a closed distribution system or specialty pharmacy where a drug could not be obtained through normal channels, or the company used another means to make it difficult for competitors to enter the market.
  • Price Gouging. Lastly, the company engaged in price gouging, maximizing profits by jacking up prices as high as possible. All of the drugs investigated had been off-patent for decades, and none of the four companies had invested a penny in research and development to create or to significantly improve the drugs. Further, the Committee found that the companies faced no meaningful increases in production or distribution costs.


Find the Senate report here.

Via Pharma Guy
rob halkes's insight:

Messing around with prices is the worst marketing intervention to gain trust and sustainability, I'd say! #pharma #hcsm

No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes!

Pharma's Progress In Precision Medicine

Pharma's Progress In Precision Medicine | New pharma |

Precision medicine is significantly impacting pharma dealmaking, R&D and market access, according to a new report from Datamonitor Healthcare.

Precision medicine is about more than molecularly targeted treatments. It increasingly refers to a far broader notion of getting the right therapy to the right patient at the right time, using any one or more of a multitude of tools and technologies. It is about getting better data about patients’ conditions, needs and lifestyles in order to allow the most appropriate treatment, and, ultimately, effective prevention strategies.

Precision medicine is typically associated with the use of therapies that target particular disease-linked genetic mutations, identified via a diagnostic test. However, the term – sometimes used interchangeably with personalized medicine – has recently come to describe the much broader idea of getting the most appropriate therapy to the right patient at the right time, using any number of tools and technologies, whether molecular, digital, or other.

Precision medicine has the potential to transform healthcare delivery, quality, and efficiency. It is already changing how pharmaceutical firms approach R&D, offering the prospect of being able to conduct faster, smaller, and cheaper trials. Yet the practice of precision medicine remains rare. Its widespread adoption faces scientific, infrastructural, economic, regulatory, educational, and commercial hurdles. While these are slowly being addressed, particularly in oncology, across most of healthcare, precision medicine remains tomorrow’s, rather than today’s, opportunity.


rob halkes's insight:

"Precision medicine" is very rich concept for new and better care, focused on better outcomes. The basic idea is clear and convincing. But is Health Care and health industry ready for it. We now see movements in the right direction in big pharma, specifically in oncology. The question remains: are all stakeholder going to benefit from this new perspective. Is it to be expected that all can gain as much as the patient? So, is it a viable strategy? We see already partnerships to be grounded. On the bright site we may expect that  stakeholders in care will learn how to create a more patient (personal) focus and create better outcomes. But can any one tell if that's so?

No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes!

Annual report 2015 - European Medicines Agency - Partners & Networks - Patients and consumers

Annual report 2015 - European Medicines Agency - Partners & Networks - Patients and consumers | New pharma |

EMA: European Union agency responsible for the protection of public and animal health through the scientific evaluation and supervision of medicines.


Annual report 2015 see download here

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) and patients have been actively interacting since the creation of the Agency in 1995. This cooperation was extended to include consumer groups with an interest in medicines. Both of these stakeholder groups bring a ‘real-life’ experience as well as specific knowledge and expertise to scientific discussions on medicines and on the impact of regulatory decisions. Collaborating with these groups supports transparency and improves regulatory processes.

The framework for interaction between EMA and patients and consumers and their organizations outlines the basis for involving patients and consumers in Agency activities. EMA's Management Board endorsed a revised framework in 2014.

The framework aims at:

  • supporting the Agency to access experiences of diseases, their management and information on current use of medicines;
  • contributing to more efficient and targeted communication to patients and consumers;
  • enhancing understanding of the role of the EU medicines regulatory network.

This framework is in line with EMA's overarching framework for stakeholder relations management, which the EMA Management Board adopted in June 2016.

Patients and consumers are involved in a wide range of activities at the Agency, including:

  • as members of the Management Board;
  • as members of scientific committees;
  • being consulted on disease-specific requests by the scientific committees and working parties;
  • taking part in discussions on the development and authorisation of medicines;
  • reviewing written information on medicines prepared by the Agency;
  • being involved in the preparation of guidelines;
  • taking part in the Agency's conferences and workshops.
rob halkes's insight:

The European Medicines Agency has adopted a new framework  for interaction between EMA and patients and consumers and their organizations in June of this year.

 They have now published their annual report of 2015


See download of the report here

No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes!

Access to Medicine Index 2016

Access to Medicine Index 2016 | New pharma |

The Access to Medicine Index analyses the top 20 research-based pharmaceutical companies on how they make medicines, vaccines and diagnostics more accessible in low- and middle-income countries.

2016 Access to Medicine Index Overall Ranking

In 2016 moderate progress is visible in the pharmaceutical industry’s efforts to improve access to medicine. GSK leads for the fifth time, ahead of Johnson & Johnson, Novartis and Merck KGaA.
Leaders see business rationale in access

GSK leads for the fifth time ahead of Johnson & Johnson, Novartis and Merck KGaA. Critically, these companies show needs-orientation, matching actions to externally identified priorities in the access agenda. For example, they invest in R&D for urgently needed products, even where commercial incentives are lacking. Their access strategies support commercial objectives, with clear business rationales.

Incremental improvements

Lower ranked companies have each improved in at least one measure, and withstood closer scrutiny: the 2016 Index used tougher measures than in 2014. Change by these companies has been incremental. Exceptions are Takeda, which launched a new access strategy and rose from 20th place, and Bayer, which lost ground as others improved.

In the top ten

Following the first four, the remaining companies in the top ten each show strength in at least one area, yet have room to deepen engagement in access to medicine. There have been two significant shifts in this group. Novo Nordisk falls to 10th place. Its solid access frame- work applies to few products (albeit those considered key for access). AstraZeneca joins the top ten, with an expanded access strategy and notable pricing practices.

Lowest rankings

Lagging furthest behind are Roche** and Astellas. Roche is less transparent than its peers, yet it advances in other measures, with new access initiatives and strong processes for ensuring compliance. While Astellas shows some improvements, such as a new pledge not to enforce IP rights in certain poor countries, these were not sufficient to avoid being overtaken.

See the website for more!

- Best practices

- Company records Cards

- Key findings


rob halkes's insight:

Just recently the Access to Medicine Index 2016 for Pharma Companies has been published!

See all and the download here

No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes!




Report published by PatientView,   Monday 14th November 2016


AbbVie I Actavis I AstraZeneca I Boehringer Ingelheim I Bristol-Myers Squibb I Eli Lilly (Lilly) I GSK I Janssen I Lundbeck I Merck & Co I Novartis I Otsuka I Pfizer I Roche I Sandoz I Sanofi I Servier I Shire I Takeda I Teva



  • Patient centricity.
  • Provision of patient information.
  • Patient safety.
  • Usefulness of products.
  • Record of transparency.
  • Integrity.

This report is based on the findings of a PatientView November 2015-January 2016 survey exploring the views of 209 patient groups with an interest in mental health conditions. The report provides feedback (from the perspective of  these patient groups) on the corporate reputation of the entire pharma industry during 2015, as well as on the individual performance of  20 pharma companies at six key indicators that influence corporate reputation. The 2015 mental-health results are compared with the responses received in 2014 from patient groups in the same therapy area, as well as with those provided by patient groups from across all therapy areas in 2015.
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 209 patient groups with an interest in mental health and responding to the 2015 ‘Corporate Reputation of Pharma’ survey were more positive about the pharma industry’s corporate reputation than mental-health patient groups in 2014, but still assessed the industry's corporate reputation less favourably than patient groups from other therapy areas in 2015.
37.2% of the 209 patient groups with an interest in mental health and responding to the 2015 ‘Corporate Reputation of Pharma’ survey stated that the pharma industry as a whole had an “Excellent” or “Good” corporate reputation that year—a lower rating of pharma’s corporate reputation than reported by patient groups from any other therapy areas, except gastrointestinal. The equivalent figure for patient groups from across all therapy areas in 2015 was 44.7%. However, the equivalent figure from mental-health patient groups in 2014 was much lower than in 2015, at 27.8%.

Why is pharma’s corporate reputation still poor among mental-health patient groups?
One reason appears to be patient-safety problems. In 2015, 53% of mental-health patient groups stated that pharma was “Excellent” or “Good” at ensuring patient safety. Although a higher figure than the 41% reported by mental-health patient groups in 2014, it remains lower than the equivalent figures from patient groups of any other therapy area in 2015 [see chart above]. In addition, mental-health patient groups would like to see an improvement in pharma’s patient centricity, and they call for pharma to be more fair in its pricing policies. 21.5% of patient groups with an interest in mental health stated that the most-important strategy for improving corporate reputation is to have a patient-centred strategy; 18.0% considered that adopting a fair pricing policy was key.

Patient groups with an interest in mental health ranked Janssen overall 1st out of 20 pharma companies for corporate reputation in 2015. Lundbeck ranked overall 2nd (in 2014, it had ranked 1st out of 13 companies), and Otsuka ranked overall 3rd.

See more here (download full content description and tables overview)

rob halkes's insight:

Specific information on how patients value pharma companies on mental health. See

No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes!

Global Outlook for Medicines Through 2021, Quintiles IMS

Global Outlook for Medicines Through 2021, Quintiles IMS | New pharma |

Quintiles IMS Webinar: December 8th:

Global Outlook for Medicines Through 2021


Join Murray Aitken and Michael Kleinrock for a webinar on December 8th to discuss findings from the much anticipated Global Outlook for Medicines through 2021 Report (to be released December 6th).

During the webinar, they will share an updated perspective on - and the implications of - the use of new and existing medicines as well as spending levels and access constraints through 2021. The report focuses on a global view of the markets for all types of pharmaceuticals, including small and large molecules, brands and generics, those dispensed in retail pharmacies as well as those used in hospital or clinic settings.



See this link

December 8th Global Outlook for Medicines through 2021 Report (to be released December 6th).


rob halkes's insight:

Stay tuned to the global outlook of medicines. Webinar on December 8th by Quintiles IMS

See this link

December 8th Global Outlook for Medicines through 2021 Report (to be released December 6th).

No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes!



London, Monday 7th November 2016. This report is based on the findings of a PatientView November 2015-January 2016 survey exploring the views of 90 patient groups with an interest in heart-and-circulatory conditions. These patient groups came from 35 countries (14 of the 90 were based in Denmark). The report provides feedback (from the perspective of  these patient groups) on the corporate reputation of the entire pharma industry during 2015, as well as on the individual performance of 15 pharma companies at six key indicators that influence corporate reputation. The 2015 heart-and-circulatory results are compared with the responses received in 2014 from patient groups in the same therapy area, as well as with those provided by patient groups from across all therapy areas in 2015.
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 90 heart-and-circulatory patient groups responding to the 2015 ‘Corporate Reputation of Pharma’ survey were more positive about the pharma industry’s corporate reputation than heart-and-circulatory patient groups responding in 2014 (but not as positive as urinary and diabetes patient groups in 2015).

As many as 51.2% of the 90 patient groups with an interest in heart-and-circulatory conditions and responding to the 2015 ‘Corporate Reputation of Pharma’ survey stated that the pharma industry as a whole had an “Excellent” or “Good” corporate reputation that year. The equivalent figure for patient groups from across all therapy areas in 2015 was 44.7%. Patient groups with an interest in heart-and-circulatory conditions ranked the pharma industry 4th out of 8 healthcare-industry sectors for corporate reputation in 2015—ahead of private healthcare, generics, and both not-for-profit, and for-profit health insurers. In 2014, heart-and-circulatory patient groups also ranked pharma 4th out of 8 healthcare-industry sectors, but with a much lower average score. Pharma was ranked 5th in 2015’s global results.

Why has pharma’s corporate reputation improved among heart-and-circulatory patient groups? One reason may account for the rise in pharma’s approval ratings among heart-and-circulatory patient groups—pharma’s growing output of innovative medicines. When asked about pharma’s ability to perform specific activities, as many as 80% of 2015’s respondent patient groups with an interest in heart-and-circulatory conditions stated that the industry was “Excellent” or “Good” at making high-quality, useful products. The equivalent figure from heart-and-circulatory patient groups in 2014 was 57%.
Patient groups with an interest in heart-and-circulatory conditions ranked Pfizer overall 1st out of 15 pharma companies for corporate reputation in 2015 (for a second year in a row). They also ranked Pfizer first for two of the six indicators of corporate reputation: patient safety, and the ability to create high-quality products.
Regarding the other four indicators of corporate reputation: AbbVie ranked 1st for patient centricity (the company was not included in 2014’s analyses); Novartis ranked 1st for the provision of patient information; and Sanofi ranked 1st for both transparency and integrity.
The PCRI data for the heart-and-circulatory league tables in 2015 and 2014, and for patient groups from across all therapy areas in 2015, show that Sanofi, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly, and GSK all improved their corporate reputation among heart-and-circulatory patient groups between those two years. The biggest leap was made by Sanofi, which went from 7th out of 11 companies in 2014 to 3rd out of 15 companies in 2015.

Click here for Full contents and tables of the report.

rob halkes's insight:

Pharma's reputation is rising in heart and circulatory conditions. Pfizer ranks first. See for the full report here:

No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes!

Consumer priorities in Health Care Survey | Deloitte US

Consumer priorities in Health Care Survey | Deloitte US | New pharma |

Discover what matters to health care consumers and what it means for health care providers.
Gaining an understanding of what drives the choice-making for health care consumers is complex. The journey is complicated and multi-tiered, and differs greatly from the consumer experience in other industries. But as the health care industry continues to shift from volume to value, and as consumers take a more active role in managing their health care, the need to understand what matters most to them grows.

In Deloitte’s 2016 Consumer Priorities in Health Care Survey, we explored a number of interactions consumers face throughout their health care experiences. Their expectations in these health care interactions are being shaped by the customized and convenient experiences they have grown accustomed to in other industries, like retail and banking.

As a result, they are demanding greater personalization; transparency in network coverage, medical prices, and bills; convenience; and more engaging digital experiences and capabilities. From doctor’s appointments to lab visits and even hospitalizations, consumers seek high quality service tailored to their specific needs from health care providers and administrative staff.

As technology advances in other areas, consumers expect the same of health care. If they can book a flight from their mobile device, why not a doctor’s appointment? Increased convenience could be facilitated at the point of patients’ self-research, scheduling, intake, and the discussion and scheduling of follow-on treatment needs. While this process remains largely manual today, despite significant investment in health IT, expanding the digital connection to providers could enhance convenience and personalization for the health care consumer.

The engaged health care consumer is proactive about their care management and cost considerations, and takes the time to understand larger aspects of the health care ecosystem that pertain to them. Therefore, consumers are increasingly expecting more out of the services they receive from their providers.

In response, players across the health care ecosystem are developing strategies to better meet the demands of the engaged consumer. Providers are working more collaboratively with health plans, technology companies, pharmacies, retailers, and device makers to streamline processes. While digital tools are not yet the highest priority or concern of health care consumers, as evidenced in recent Deloitte studies, their usage will be vital to the future of consumerism.

Survey findings revealed a series of top-tier priorities expressed by consumers with regards to their providers:

Consumers want to be known and understood in order to get a personalized health care experience; providers are in the best position to deliver it.

According to Deloitte’s Survey of US Health Care Consumers, 75 percent of consumers seek a partnership with their providers to determine the most effective treatment decisions. And one in three consumers wants their provider to push them to be more active in researching and questioning their prescribed treatments.

We found that the number one preferred interaction is having a doctor or other health care provider spend sufficient time with the patient and not rushing through exams.

Relationships with providers can be complex, often emotionally charged, and become increasingly crucial over time as older patients often find themselves with increased face-to-face care and support needs. The most attuned providers can steer consumers effectively by focusing on the element of human touch.

Download the survey to read in detail the health care interactions that stood out in each of the four thematic clusters.



rob halkes's insight:

Good to see that patients know best about their own demands:

The first is trust and dedicating enough time to the right decisions for the patient personally. Although digital support is valued, the basic principle is empathy and attention.


No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes!

UK aims to cut four years from drug development process - Pharmaphorum

UK aims to cut four years from drug development process - Pharmaphorum | New pharma |

NICE, regulator and NHS should work together, according to review.

October 24, 2016

The government has published its long-awaited Accelerated Access Review, a report that aims to cut up to four years from the process that gets a drug from the lab to use on England’s National Health Service.

Commissioned by the government and led by an independent chair, Sir Hugh Taylor, the review covers diagnostic tools, drugs, digital healthcare and medical technologies.

Originally due to be published earlier this year, the Accelerated Access Review is the brainchild of former life sciences minister George Freeman, but was delayed because of the EU referendum.

Developed in partnership with the Wellcome Trust, the review aims to speed up and simplify the process for getting promising new treatments and diagnostics from pre-clinical development to patients.

The scheme will join up clinical development, regulation and assessment of cost-effectiveness.

This will be through a new partnership including NHS England, NHS Improvement, NICE and the regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

Patient access to drugs could be brought forward by up to four years if a scientific opinion from the Early Access to Medicines Scheme is used, saving 12-18 months, there is no delay at the NICE appraisal stage, which takes two years, or during the process for NHS commissioning and adoption, which takes two years or more.

There will be a simpler process for regulating digital technologies, often developed by smaller companies, such as healthcare apps for managing long-term solutions.

A new Strategic Commercial Unit should be created within NHS England, the report said, to create “win-win” scenarios where innovators benefit through early access to the NHS market and increased, perhaps guaranteed sales. Innovators would offer better value to the taxpayer.

Patients will also have a greater say in determining what innovations to prioritise.

Other proposals include:

  • Improved horizon scanning for innovative new products, and a systematic approach to prioritising the best innovations coming down the pipeline,
  • A national ‘Accelerated Access Pathway’ for the most transformative products, where the system works together to bring these exciting innovations to patients more quickly, including for digital products which are often developed by SMEs,
  • More streamlined local routes to market for all innovators, making the whole system clearer and simpler
  • Stronger commercial capabilities within the NHS so that it can have the right conversations with innovators and secure the best deals for patients,
  • An ‘Accelerated Access Partnership’, bringing together the key national health bodies in a collaboration focused on bringing forward innovation,
  • Better data on the impact of technologies on patient outcomes and more easily accessible data on the uptake of innovative technologies,
  • Local support for the spread of innovation, through Academic Health Science Networks,
  • Stronger incentives for local NHS organisations to use and spread the benefits of innovation.


rob halkes's insight:

Accelerated Access to new drugs in the UK.
Will the NHS succeed in its intentions to reduce time and speed up and simplify the process for getting promising new treatments and diagnostics from pre-clinical development to patients.
New organizational structures (partnership) between NHS, NICE and others in regulation, as well as as "new strategic  commercial unit should should be created (among other things to do the trick of reducing the normal time to healthcare of new drugs by 4 (!) years.

I just cannot help being a little skeptic having seen publications and information about the bureaucracy of NHS, messages about failing finances of the NHS (Brexit related) as well as my own experiences in getting several authorities to work together in such undertakings. 

There is more to it then just a review.. But I wish them all good luck and best of success! (May a sincere co-creative process might help here)

No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes!

Connecting Insights

Connecting Insights | New pharma |

This report explores how connecting disparate streams of data can create valuable insights that can make the difference in today’s biopharmaceutical marketplace. While these opportunities for connections exist across all disease and therapeutic areas, they may be most acutely needed in the complex and dynamic area of oncology. This report makes the case for the process by which a looming crisis in oncology can be averted, by applying the science—and art—of connecting healthcare insights.

rob halkes's insight:

"Data" might be the "disruptive" driver to create collaboration and partnership between sets of stakeholders to develop care to integrated and co-created care paths. Let's hope that. Is will be complex enough, but with that needed and not to be avoided!

No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes!

J&J aims to incubate medtech companies with Texas Medical Center through Center for Device Innovation

J&J aims to incubate medtech companies with Texas Medical Center through Center  for Device Innovation | New pharma |
The diversified company is collaborating with Texas Medical Center, the largest medical center in the world, to launch a medical device incubator where internal research projects as well as those working with outside entrepreneurs.


Johnson & Johnson is teaming up with the Texas Medical Center to accelerate the development of medical devices drawing from Houston’s deep engineering reserve and its large and diverse patient base.

That announcement was made at the annual conference of AdvaMed, the largest medtech lobby, in Minneapolis on Tuesday. Cardiac surgeon and serial medtech entrepreneur William Cohn will lead the Center for Device Innovation at Texas Medical Center. Cohn will not only focus on J&J internal research projects but also work with external entrepreneurs who will occupy space at CDI – the way young companies take up space at CDO.

Innovators at CDI will have access to the preclinical facilities of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston Methodist Research Institute, and the Texas Heart Institute. Be it internal J&J projects or external innovations, the center will allow for rapid prototyping and “fast failure” for early and mid-stage device development.

Texas Medical Center comprises 57 institutions with more than 110,000 employees and 60,000 medical residents, and gets more than 10 million patient visits per year, Cohn noted.

Engineers from other J&J sites will rotate through the incubator, which will house as many as eight projects at a time, added Bruce Rosengard, chief medical science and technology officer for J&J’s medtech companies. The company also plans to leverage the engineering resources at Baylor and NASA and will take advantage of the medical center’s large number of patients for clinical trials.

“We’re really going to roll it out and build it sequentially over a period of a couple of years to maximum capacity,” Rosengard said.

The incubator initiative is the expansion of a partnership for J&J and Texas Medical Center given that J&J opened one of its JLABS incubators there earlier this year. Similar such JLABS in San Diego, Toronto, South San Francisco, and Cambridge, Massachusetts.

CDI will focus on five areas where there’s globally significant unmet need for medical devices, said Gary Pruden, worldwide chairman of medical devices for the company. Those are — cardiology, obesity, oncology, osteoporosis, and osteoarthritis.

“By offering a range of different models for companies in different stages, to allow us to rotate certain projects to Houston that we think that environment can uniquely accelerate, that’s attractive,” Pruden said.

J&J will align those projects strategically, according to Rosengard.

“We think the special sauce here will be to provide end-to-end rapid development from concept to commercialization,” he said.

rob halkes's insight:

Like we ascertained in our research for EyeforPharma, (2015,  also in 2013) the innovating pharma industry like J&J is seriously advancing in creating services to innovate healthcare beyond the therapy, "beyond the pill" also. The hype around "Patient Centricity" seems to have overflown this promising but difficult development. "beyoind the Pill" strategies go beyond "Patient Centricity," of which the pharma community is not yet able to define it. A strategic discussion might be in place for a company to look at how the business model might be developed according to demands from different regions in the global market and and innovative developments in health care itself. And so, exploring how working "beyond the pill" might be of the best of interests of patients, like they themselves would see this.  

No comment yet.
Rescooped by rob halkes from Pharma Industry Regulation!

#FDA Publishes New Draft Guidance on Software as a Medical Device (SaMD).

#FDA Publishes New Draft Guidance on Software as a Medical Device (SaMD). | New pharma |

The FDA has entered into the federal register a new draft guidance  pertaining to "software as a medical device" (SaMD). The guidance is presented as representing the FDA's current thinking on establishing clinical evaluation guidelines for SaMD, but is written by an international organization of device regulators, the International Medical Device Regulators Forum, of which FDA is a member.


The guidance seeks to articulate what's new and different about SaMD (a category which would include mobile medical apps) and provide a stratified guidance on how to regulate different kinds of software and what kind of evidence is needed for each regulatory category. The guidance stratifies devices on two axes: whether the device informs care, drives care, or treats/diagnoses and whether the condition in question is non-serious, serious, or critical. So software that treats or diagnoses a critical condition is in the highest risk category, while software that informs care about a non-serious condition is in the lowest.


The guidelines also call out and address the fact that software development tends to move faster than traditional medical device development and can more easily be influenced by postmarket data.


"SaMD ... is unique in that it operates in a complex highly connected-interactive socio-technical environment in which frequent changes and modifications can be implemented more quickly and efficiently," the guidance says. "Development of SaMD is also heavily influenced by new entrants unfamiliar with medical device regulations and terminology developing a broad spectrum of applications."

Via Pharma Guy
rob halkes's insight:

Via @pharmaguy The New #FDA draft guidance on software as a Medical Device (SaMD)

Pharma Guy's curator insight, October 18, 2016 7:26 AM

Related article: “Is SaaD - Software as a Drug - the Next Big Thing in mHealth?”;

Scooped by rob halkes!

COPORATE REPUTATION FOR PHARMA from a patient perspective is growing! See the latest results of 2015 published this year.

COPORATE REPUTATION FOR PHARMA from a patient perspective is growing! See the latest results of 2015 published this year. | New pharma |

Reports published in 2016 on the Corporate Reputation of Pharma, as viewed by over 1,000 patient groups


The corporate Reputation of Pharma is growing:
In 2011 there was 42.0% of patient groups stating that the corporate reputation of the Pharma industry is "excellent" or "good". Although this percentage decreased to a 34% in 2012, it has increased ever since to 44.7% in 2015!

For a quick summary about our methodology and series of reports on corporate reputation of pharma and medical devices view the powerpoint here


Of course, this global indicators must be seen from the differentiated perspectives of regions and diseases!


Reports of Pharma's Corporate Reputation over regions:



Reports of Pharma's Corporate Reputation over therapeutic areas.:

Cancer; Circulatory conditions; Diabetes; HIV/Aids; Hepatitis; Neurological conditions; Mental health; Skin; Respiratory and Rare diseases.
Reports for Respiratory and Circulatory conditions are forthcoming. 

rob halkes's insight:

Great to seen how pharma's Corporate Reputation in the eyes of the patients is growing globally from 2011 to 2015, with a dip in 2012. Study the nuances for different global regions and Disease conditions!

Pharma Guy's curator insight, October 18, 2016 7:16 AM

Related article: “Pharma's Rep Among Patient Groups at 4-Year High”; It should be noted that several of the patient organizations participating in this survey receive funding from the pharmaceutical industry. Also read, “#Pharma to Patient Advocacy Groups Questioning High Drug Prices: ‘Why Are You Doing This to Us?’”; and “Americans Hate the #Pharma Industry Almost as Much as They Hate U.S. Gov't!”;

Rescooped by rob halkes from Patient Self Management!

Better information would improve cancer management, according to PatientView survey

Better information would improve cancer management, according to PatientView survey | New pharma |

Survey results demonstrate the need for scientific information about cancer to be understandable to patients

  • Findings are based on a May 2016 survey of 124 cancer-oriented patient and carer organizations in 39 countries, conducted by PatientView, and sponsored by AstraZeneca.
  • 99% of respondent patient/carer organisations report that people living with cancer want to know how their cancer treatments work.
  • Over 90% of patient/carer organizations report that patients must understand scientific concepts about cancer if they are to better manage their cancer.  


LONDON, Friday, 7th October 2016

New survey findings indicate a significant need for scientific information that is accessible to, and understood by, people living with (and affected by) cancer. The majority of patient/carer organizations responding to the survey recognize that cancer science is complex and fast changing. As cancer science improves, and new discoveries occur, people who are living with cancer wish to learn more about the science of their cancer diagnosis and treatments. Nearly all (99%) of the patient/carer organizations surveyed “Agree” or “Somewhat agree” that patients want to know how their treatments work, and 91% of the respondent patient/carer organisations say that patients need to understand relevant scientific concepts about cancer to better manage their cancer.


The patient/carer organizations responding to the survey, however, also say that cancer science is hard to navigate for newly-diagnosed and experienced patients alike, and that currently- available patient information about cancer is difficult to understand, and confusing to people who are living with cancer [60% of respondent patient/carer organizations believe that cancer science is not well explained to patients and the public.


  “An exciting new wave of cancer treatments is emerging out of the rapidly-advancing scientific concepts about cancer,” says Alex Wyke, founder and CEO of PatientView. “Yet, in the face of the advance, cancer patient information remains stubbornly hard for ordinary people to digest. The results from this 2016 survey show that over 90% of respondent patient/carer organisations believe that people living with cancer (and their families and carers) will be better equipped to manage the disease if they have a fundamental understanding of basic cancer science. Arming the cancer patient community with intelligible knowledge about cancer will allow people with cancer to understand more about the disease and its numerous diagnostic procedures and treatments. Such knowledge will empower people with cancer to communicate more effectively with doctors, nurses, and all the other health professionals who help them to fight cancer. In short, information about cancer science—carefully tailored to the needs of patients—will ultimately permit people with cancer to make truly informed decisions about their health.”  


Key findings from the survey include:

99% of respondent patient/carer organizations “Agree” or “Somewhat agree” that people living with cancer want to know how their cancer treatments work.

Over 90% of respondent patient/carer organizations “Agree” or “Somewhat agree” that patients must understand scientific concepts about cancer if they are to better manage their cancer.

57% of respondents indicate that increasing the awareness of cancer treatment options among patients and the public is a top priority of their organization.

61% of respondents say that the public is unfamiliar with basic scientific concepts about cancer.

83% of patient/carer organizations have been asked by patients/carers about immuno- oncology. However, only 48.2 % of those same organizations are themselves familiar with the topic of immuno-therapies in oncology.

67% of patient/carer organizations have been asked by patients/carers about gene mutations associated with cancer and biomarkers. Again, though, only 52 % of the organizations themselves claim familiarity with the concepts of genetic testing and precision medicine.  


Full survey results can be accessed via this link  


ABOUT THE SURVEY SPONSOR This 2016 survey of 124 patient and carer organizations was sponsored by AstraZeneca, a global, science-led, bio-pharmaceutical company that focuses on the discovery, development and commercialization of prescription medicines—primarily for the treatment of diseases in three therapy areas (respiratory/autoimmunity; cardiovascular/metabolic diseases; and oncology).  


PatientView was founded in 2000 out of a belief that the views of patients should be considered in every important healthcare decision (whether a new healthcare product or service, or a government change to a healthcare system). A UK-based research, publishing and consultancy group, PatientView has the capacity to reach out to 120,000 patient groups worldwide, covering over 1,000 medical specialties.


PatientView Ltd, One Fleet Place, London EC4M 7WS, UK +44 (0)1547 520 965


Media contact

Alex Wyke, CEO, PatientView +44 (0)1547 520 965]

Via PatientView, rob halkes
rob halkes's insight:

Grt example of how big pharma supports healthcare provision, by generating significant patient needs!

PatientView's curator insight, October 7, 2016 6:41 AM

Survey done w/ support from @AstraZeneca shows #cancer patients want easier to understand, actionable info on disease and treatment

rob halkes's curator insight, October 7, 2016 8:58 AM

The more cooperation between patient groups and health industry, the more the really relevant and significant information can be researched to better health outcomes!

Scooped by rob halkes!

The Hard Truth About Business Model Innovation

The Hard Truth About Business Model Innovation | New pharma |

Successful business model innovation requires an understanding of how business models evolve.

Many attempts at business model innovation fail. To change that, executives need to understand how business models develop through predictable stages over time — and then apply that understanding to key decisions about new business models.

Understanding the interdependencies in a business model is important because those interdependencies grow and harden across time, creating another fundamental truth that is critical for leaders to understand: Business models by their very nature are designed not to change, and they become less flexible and more resistant to change as they develop over time. Leaders of the world’s best businesses should take special note, because the better your business model performs at its assigned task, the more interdependent and less capable of change it likely is. The strengthening of these interdependencies is not an intentional act by managers; rather, it comes from the emergence of processes that arise as the natural, collective response to recurrent activities. The longer a business unit exists, the more often it will confront similar problems and the more ingrained its approaches to solving those problems will become. We often refer to these ingrained approaches as a business’s “culture.”


rob halkes's insight:

Great article about business model innovation. I was struck by the resemblances of errors made at introducing new value added services to pharmaceuticals, "beyond the pill". The same may possibly be expected by the new "hype" (?) about patient centricity: in my mind doing things without reflection about what it is: ending up in webinars/conferences existing mainly of either pharma staff in which they share their ignorance, or even in pharma staff added with a patient or patient representative, in which the patient is commonly canonized (as in 'sainted'): understandable but not a functional way of developing new trends in a company, let alone a new trend in a business sector..

See here what patients really have to say about corporate pharma companies and its patient "centricity":

No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes!

European Pharmaceutical Market Research Association | EphMRA

European Pharmaceutical Market Research Association |  EphMRA | New pharma |

EphMRA develops and improves standards and techniques for market research in Europe in the field of health and healthcare. EphMRA offers training and conferences for healthcare professionals.

We are now inviting ideas for papers for the conference next year, 2017, and welcomes your submissions on a whole range of different topics.  Below are some ideas for topics to get you started but we would be keen to hear from you if you have other ideas which you think will educate, inform and inspire colleagues working in our industry:

  1. Innovative approaches
  2. How to increase the value of MR / BI
  3. Patient Insights
  4. Multi-disciplinary teams
  5. Analysis / Secondary data
  6. Data Collection
  7. Ideas for debates involving panels / audience participation 

Please read more here about the Call for Contributors pdf which has all the information you need to make your submission.  You will need to use the submission form - click here and we need your submissions by Monday 19 September so that the Programme Committee can review them all in October.

All sessions will be 30 minutes in duration (25 minutes for presentation + 5 minutes for Q&A).

If you require any further information, please contact either Bernadette Rogers - or Caroline Snowdon -

We look forward to hearing from you soon with your ideas.

rob halkes's insight:

EphMRA, the European Pharmaceutical Market Research Association, is not only reflecting on the basics of its existence, but, in so doing, they are now embarking on a wider perspective on research in healthcare and healthcare markets (see here ).

This is reflected in its conference themes of 2017 for which the organization is now calling for papers.
Great to see there the topics of "innovative approaches" and "Patient Insights"! To orientate yourself, see for instance the "pharma corporate reputation review" by Patientview!

No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes!


Evaluate | New pharma |

Based on EvaluatePharma’s coverage of the world’s leading

5,000 pharmaceutical and biotech companies, the World Preview highlights trends in prescription drug sales, patent risk, R&D spend, global brand sales and market performance by therapy area.

If there was any doubt that the pharmaceutical industry is entering a period of sustained growth it should be put to rest by this year’s World Preview 2015 showing prescription drug sales are set to advance at almost 5% a year until 2020.

Continued confidence in the sector is being driven by a number of positive fundamentals including the recent increase in R&D productivity, which has resulted in a big hike in drug approvals, and the emergence of breakout drugs such as Gilead’s Sovaldi franchise. Excitement surrounding new products including Merck & Co’s Keytruda, Bristol-Myers Squibb’s Opdivo and anti-PCSK9s from Amgen and Sanofi should ensure the sales momentum continues.

The current industry feel-good factor has also been mirrored in the amount of money businesses are raising, the number of pharma and biotech companies floating on exchanges around the world, and the healthy appetite for M&A seen across the board.

While some things are changing in the industry, others remain the same. A strong focus on oncology has helped Novartis retain its crown as the number one pharma company in terms of prescription sales. More interesting, however, has been the rise of ‘big biotech’ and specialty pharma into the ranks of the industry’s big players.

Despite setbacks from some approved and clinical biological drugs depressing the speed of change, the global sales contribution from biologic drugs is forecast to jump from 23% in 2014 to 27% in 2020.

These drugs have traditionally enjoyed greater patent protection than their small molecule relatives,but the landscape is changing with the approval this year of the first US biosimilar

Future outlook

Standing at the midpoint of 2015, the pharma and biotech industry looks as if it is in very good shape, the patent cliff is firmly in the rear view mirror, and while it might be too early to call on sustained R&D productivity, things are at least moving in the right direction. The only clouds currently on what looks to be a sunny horizon for pharma and biotech are global pricing

and market access. With many predicting that for the first time the industry could produce a series of real ‘cures’ for previously intractable diseases, it is clear that these innovative drugs will come at a price. What is also clear is the growing reluctance of both government and private healthcare providers to fund very expensive drug treatment regimens


Complimentary copies of the full report can be downloaded at:

rob halkes's insight:

Looks like the pharma business awaits a fruitful future. However dark clouds are emerging at the pharma skies too. Challenges to business and commercial approaches might not only concentrate on pricing, but certainly, with a rising trend in a demand for increasing health outcomes of medication, on the right applications and adherence too. Partnership with healthcare providers that goes beyond 'just' delivering drugs seems to become crucial.

No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes!

Medtech Key Account Management in the Age of Consolidation

Medtech Key Account Management in the Age of Consolidation | New pharma |

Big, multihospital health care systems increasingly dominate the US market, and they are reshaping where and how vendor selection is made. Many medical-technology companies are not fully prepared for the changes taking place in purchasing dynamics. Companies that develop a top-quality KAM function will build a powerful advantage.

In this article:

  • US hospitals continue to consolidate, concentrating the power of big health systems over purchasing decisions.
  • Selling successfully to these organizations requires a deep understanding of their strategy, stakeholders, and decision-making processes. 
  • The challenge is building an account team with requisite in-depth customer knowledge, which requires a key account management approach and an exceptional degree of coordination across a vendor’s selling resources.
A New KAM Model: From Sales Transactions to Strategic Partnerships

Main take aways:
- Centralization of purchasing is on the rise, but the structures and processes vary. The shift of purchasing authority for medtech products from clinical to economic decision-makers is well recognized. Less well understood are the structure and hierarchy in which purchasing decisions are made at each large system and the often complex role of national, regional, and local value-analysis committees.
- Health system value-analysis committees rank clinical value over clinical preference. Value analysis—measuring the benefits of a device relative to its cost—has resulted in more informed and more economically sophisticated decision-making in large systems. Physicians are increasingly “picking their battles” instead of fighting hard for every clinical preference

- Develop customer-specific account plans that are built upon deep customer understanding. Best-in-class account plans reflect a deep understanding of a customer’s business strategy and objectives—and extensive knowledge of the customer’s purchasing process and key decision makers.

The challenge for medtech account teams is determining where the purchasing authority resides in each system’s structure and understanding what factors those decision makers care most about. Good account plans use this understanding, as well as a detailed analysis of the customer’s market position, market share, and growth prospects, to help articulate a clear sales strategy and how that strategy will help the customer achieve its objectives. Periodic reviews, especially after a significant customer event such as a merger, acquisition, or senior-management change, help keep the sales strategy fresh and relevant.

- Develop clear economic and clinical value propositions for core products. Medtech suppliers need to demonstrate the value that their products can deliver beyond price and clinical efficacy. Potential proof points are improving outcomes, increasing workflow efficiency, requiring fewer staff, reducing infections, adding new profitable patients, reducing readmissions, and many more.
- Adopt a consistent and defensible national pricing and contracting strategy. 
- Implement a sales coverage model that defines clear roles for key account managers and sales reps in the field. The most progressive medtech companies are beginning to vary their sales coverage on the basis of customer characteristics.
- Build a KAM team that possesses a new set of skills
- Provide the team with management tools that support efficient decision-making and cross-functional sales execution. 
rob halkes's insight:

BCG has found out about the same as I did already since 2007: Key Account management demands crossfunctional teams, "build on the basis of customer characteristics", not only according to quantitative parameters but also on qualitative characteristics, I would add! See a summary of my experience here.

Do have me explain to you what experience tells about how to set this up!

No comment yet.