New pharma
11.8K views | +0 today
Follow
 
Scooped by rob halkes
onto New pharma
Scoop.it!

Survey: pharma not helping online health info seekers - Pharmaphorum

Survey: pharma not helping online health info seekers - Pharmaphorum | New pharma | Scoop.it

The results of exclusive research with people seeking health information online in the US, UK and Canada should be a wake-up call for pharma, says Richard Meyer.

The results of a recent survey with over 16,000 people looking for health-related information suggest that pharma companies need to review their digital marketing capabilities. The data come from research with responders in the US (n = 9,544), UK (n = 3,674) and Canada (n = 3,285).

 

Here are some topline findings.

(1)    Regarding the search for online health information, most were confused with the depth of information found and spent a lot of time trying to better understand and confirm it. Among the key complaints were that health information was too hard to understand and that some of the information was outdated.

(2)    Pharma product websites were only seen as resources for the drug, not as resources for health information. In addition pharma companies did not update their content enough, especially when treatments were in the news.

(3)    The number one online site mentioned was WebMD but the vast majority of respondents (71%) said they went to multiple websites to get all the information they needed.

(4)    Social media was becoming more important in the search for online health information, with people looking for information on the experiences of others with certain treatments, along with ways to save money and work with their insurance companies to get a prescribed/recommended treatment.

(5)    Women went online for health information more than men, although they only went online when there was a trigger (i.e. upcoming appointment with doctor, or diagnosis).

(6)    Respondents did go to pharma websites to review medications, but also went to competitors’ sites. Their choice of treatment was often based on cost and benefit versus side effects, as it related to quality of life.

(7)    Even though direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising is not permitted in the UK or Canada, online health information seekers still used the Internet to visit pharma websites. (...)

 

Some of the (US) respondents were chosen for an in-depth follow-up conversation via phone call to better understand their biggest concerns with healthcare. The US respondents’ number one concern was the rising cost of health insurance, with a majority saying that it was eating into their compensation. In fact, some said that they wouldn’t leave their current employer because they were afraid of either losing insurance or paying more for it with a potential new employer.

In probing this issue to better understand attitudes towards insurers, people were happy to expand on this subject. Essentially, they felt that their health insurers were not treating them like customers and were dictating treatments too much. For example, one woman had to wait 60 days to try a new multiple sclerosis treatment, which meant she had have 60 days without any treatment. “I’m the customer,” she said. “What the hell am I paying you for?”

The biggest frustration with the US healthcare system was the inability to share medical records with a variety of physicians. Patients believed that their medical records were THEIR property and wanted them to follow them if they moved location or visited specialists.

In Canada respondents reported that the overriding issue was the time it could take to see a specialist, which could be weeks or months. Some said that they had crossed the border into the US in order to see a specialist sooner.

The moderator for this research and our data analysts consistently observed that “people seem to be getting lost in the search for healthcare information” and that they “often look to their doctor to help them sort it out”. They felt as though they were not visible in a system that, they felt, treated them as a number rather than as a person who had a lot of questions and anxiety...

 

rob halkes's insight:

Current market conditions, both in US, Canad and UK, show how the developments in healthcare emerge more quickly than pharma companies are able to follow up. Here's a research telling how patients experience difficulties to find information on thier health conditions and about their own health. They must feel as being a number not recognized for their intent to seriously  understand what their condition is all about and how to cope. It also appears that pharma is not the only stakeholder that lacks behind patient engagement: healthcare insurances as well as health provider institutes ignore or even willfully sustain barriers for patient to learn for themselves and do something about their own condition. It's no wonder so, that health care costs keep on rising!

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

Survey: pharma not helping online health info seekers - Pharmaphorum

Survey: pharma not helping online health info seekers - Pharmaphorum | New pharma | Scoop.it

The results of exclusive research with people seeking health information online in the US, UK and Canada should be a wake-up call for pharma, says Richard Meyer.

The results of a recent survey with over 16,000 people looking for health-related information suggest that pharma companies need to review their digital marketing capabilities. The data come from research with responders in the US (n = 9,544), UK (n = 3,674) and Canada (n = 3,285).

 

Here are some topline findings.

(1)    Regarding the search for online health information, most were confused with the depth of information found and spent a lot of time trying to better understand and confirm it. Among the key complaints were that health information was too hard to understand and that some of the information was outdated.

(2)    Pharma product websites were only seen as resources for the drug, not as resources for health information. In addition pharma companies did not update their content enough, especially when treatments were in the news.

(3)    The number one online site mentioned was WebMD but the vast majority of respondents (71%) said they went to multiple websites to get all the information they needed.

(4)    Social media was becoming more important in the search for online health information, with people looking for information on the experiences of others with certain treatments, along with ways to save money and work with their insurance companies to get a prescribed/recommended treatment.

(5)    Women went online for health information more than men, although they only went online when there was a trigger (i.e. upcoming appointment with doctor, or diagnosis).

(6)    Respondents did go to pharma websites to review medications, but also went to competitors’ sites. Their choice of treatment was often based on cost and benefit versus side effects, as it related to quality of life.

(7)    Even though direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising is not permitted in the UK or Canada, online health information seekers still used the Internet to visit pharma websites. (...)

 

Some of the (US) respondents were chosen for an in-depth follow-up conversation via phone call to better understand their biggest concerns with healthcare. The US respondents’ number one concern was the rising cost of health insurance, with a majority saying that it was eating into their compensation. In fact, some said that they wouldn’t leave their current employer because they were afraid of either losing insurance or paying more for it with a potential new employer.

In probing this issue to better understand attitudes towards insurers, people were happy to expand on this subject. Essentially, they felt that their health insurers were not treating them like customers and were dictating treatments too much. For example, one woman had to wait 60 days to try a new multiple sclerosis treatment, which meant she had have 60 days without any treatment. “I’m the customer,” she said. “What the hell am I paying you for?”

The biggest frustration with the US healthcare system was the inability to share medical records with a variety of physicians. Patients believed that their medical records were THEIR property and wanted them to follow them if they moved location or visited specialists.

In Canada respondents reported that the overriding issue was the time it could take to see a specialist, which could be weeks or months. Some said that they had crossed the border into the US in order to see a specialist sooner.

The moderator for this research and our data analysts consistently observed that “people seem to be getting lost in the search for healthcare information” and that they “often look to their doctor to help them sort it out”. They felt as though they were not visible in a system that, they felt, treated them as a number rather than as a person who had a lot of questions and anxiety...

 

rob halkes's insight:

Current market conditions, both in US, Canad and UK, show how the developments in healthcare emerge more quickly than pharma companies are able to follow up. Here's a research telling how patients experience difficulties to find information on thier health conditions and about their own health. They must feel as being a number not recognized for their intent to seriously  understand what their condition is all about and how to cope. It also appears that pharma is not the only stakeholder that lacks behind patient engagement: healthcare insurances as well as health provider institutes ignore or even willfully sustain barriers for patient to learn for themselves and do something about their own condition. It's no wonder so, that health care costs keep on rising!

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

What 12 pharma/medtech companies were doing—in their own words—on patient centricity and patient-advocacy-group relationships during 2016-2017

What 12 pharma/medtech companies were doing—in their own words—on patient centricity and patient-advocacy-group relationships during 2016-2017 | New pharma | Scoop.it

In the 2016-2017 round of its two annual surveys of corporate reputation—the corporate reputation of pharmaceutical companies, and the corporate reputation of medical-device companies—PatientView invited companies to contribute their thoughts on their own patient-related activities, 2016-2017.
 
The companies’ own comments comprise this publication, released in October 2017.

Ten pharma companies (AbbVie, Bayer Vital Gmbh, Eisai, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lundbeck, Novartis, Servier, Teva and ViiV Healthcare), and two medical-device companies (Coloplast and ConvaTec) offered contributions.
 
In addition, two of the pharma companies, Eisai and Janssen, offered country/market variations on their global patient-related activities (Eisai offered the patient-related activities of its Italy-based and USA-based arms, and Janssen, that of its UK arm).

These companies answered the following questions posed to them:

  1. Can you confirm which views you are expressing in this questionnaire for your company’s patient-related activities in 2016-2017?
  2. With how many patient organisations did your company partner in 2016-2017?
  3. What was the most common geographic remit of the patient organisations with which your company partnered in 2016-2017?
  4. Did your company partner in 2016-2017 with patient organisations whose specialisation(s) lies outside your therapy areas (TAs)?
  5. How does your company define the phrase ‘patient centricity’?
  6. How do good patient-organisation relations benefit your company?
  7. If you wish to highlight one of your key initiatives undertaken in 2016-2017 to improve patient-organisation relations, patient advocacy, or patient centricity, what is that initiative?
  8. What other patient-friendly activities did your company undertake in 2016-2017 that would be known to patient organisations familiar with your company?
  9. What are your company’s plans for improving its patient-organisation relations, its patient advocacy, or its patient centricity in 2017-2018 (from your perspective)?
  10. Finally, what do you foresee as likely to be the biggest obstacles that your company will face in having effective relationships with patient organisations during the forthcoming year (2017/2018)?

To obtain a copy of this report email:

alexwyke@patient-view.com or report@patient-view.com

rob halkes's insight:

New report by PatientView  reports what pharma (10) and medtech (2) companies were doing - in their own words - on patient centricity and patient-advocacy-group relations during 2016/17, also in reply to the corporate  reputation findings from PatientView's annual services. FInd out how your company's activities relate to these!
Email alexwyke@patient-view.com or report@patient-view.com

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

Understanding the Drivers of Drug Expenditure in the U.S.

Understanding the Drivers of Drug Expenditure in the U.S. | New pharma | Scoop.it

Here's a new report on the factors influencing drug expenditure, including the issues around pricing. It surely helps politicians and other stakeholders to understand the complexity of the pricing process pharma companies see themselves confronted with.

 

Recent reports of increases in drug list prices and overall spend on medicines have put the spotlight on the cost of medicines in the U.S. The increasing list prices of specific medicines has, in particular, generated significant media attention. These messages have amplified concerns of policy makers, insurers, pharmacy benefit managers and other healthcare stakeholders that drug prices are to blame for rising costs in the U.S. healthcare system. 

However, much of the coverage on list prices has left out the more complex context of the prices, including

  • prices actually received by manufacturers or paid by intermediaries or patients
  • the volume usage of the drugs in question
  • the longer term context of the changes in a drug’s prices over time—including periods of price drops after patent protection

In this report you will find an in-depth analysis of the trends in medicine spending growth and manufacturer net revenues suggesting a far more complex situation than one of prices set by manufacturers simply being too high or growing too fast.

In particular the report highlights the dynamics between prices and volume and introduces a novel way of combining market segments to consider the impact of patent expiry alongside other price related elements. The result is a clearer reflection of trends that affect the costs of medicines in the market. The report also notes that the trend of manufacturer revenues and patient costs are evolving in opposing directions, and that patient exposure to cost trends are not uniformly distributed across patients.

Download

rob halkes's insight:

More insight into pricing of medicines.

 

Here's a new report on the factors influencing drug expenditure, including the issues around pricing. It surely helps politicians and other stakeholders to understand the complexity of the pricing process pharma companies see themselves confronted with.

 

The Quintiles_IMS_insitute published a report on the drivers of drug expenditure in the U.S.

"Much of the coverage on list prices has left out the more complex context of the prices, including

  • prices actually received by manufacturers or paid by intermediaries or patients
  • the volume usage of the drugs in question
  • the longer term context of the changes in a drug’s prices over time—including periods of price drops after patent protection"

I must state: obliged reading for policy makers, insurers, pharmacy benefit managers and other healthcare stakeholders, including journalists (!)

See here: http://quintilesimsinstitute.org/files/web/IMSH%20Institute/Reports/QIIHI_Understanding_the_Drivers_of_Drug_Expenditure_US.pdf

 

 

And, still this is not the whole story, of we also look at regulations to access to markets, including reimbursement ruling and influences of reimbursement models/schemes like pay for performance and population health, as well as preference schemes for medicines by medical committees or payer incentives...

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

How pharma and patient advocacy groups can become in sync

How pharma and patient advocacy groups can become in sync | New pharma | Scoop.it

At next month’s Patient Summit Europe (19-20 October, London) find out how you can be more than a trusted partner – get yourself on the same side as your patients, and deliver sophisticated advocacy that fights their cause.

Patient advocacy groups and pharma companies have the same ultimate goal – better health outcomes – but managing these relationships needs care on both sides.

To give you an insight into the level of discussion you can expect at the summit, we spoke with:
- Nisith Kumar, Director, Global Patient Affairs, Pfizer
- Ann Kwong, Founder and CEO, TREK Therapeutics
- Lynn Bartnicki, Patient advocate, Living Beyond Breast Cancer

Read the article ‘Dancing to the same tune?’ here: https://goo.gl/hgVVms
Kind regards,
Cintia Hernandez Marco

rob halkes's insight:

“Some drug companies are really focused on patients, and some don’t have a clue.” Lynn Bartnicki, patient advocate

- a quote from the report of Eyeforpharma.

Good to see some words from pharma and patient advocates published.

Even better to follow and read one of the many publications about the pharma and patient groups' relations: a trying but difficult engagement

You can look at the patient perspective in "pharma corporate reputations",

or overviews of the patient movement. A study about pharma and the connected patient. And above all: check your own credibility as a pharma company in the eyes of patients: your bespoke data on your company, for its different affiliations and therapy areas, based on 6 years of global data on corporate reputation in the perspective of patients and patient groups.

more...
rob halkes's curator insight, September 13, 8:41 AM

“Some drug companies are really focused on patients, and some don’t have a clue.” Lynn Bartnicki, patient advocate

- a quote from the report of Eyeforpharma.

Good to see some words from pharma and patient advocates published.

Even better to follow and read one of the many publications about the pharma and patient groups' relations: a trying but difficult engagement

You can look at the patient perspective in "pharma corporate reputations", or at overviews of the patient movement. 

A study about pharma and the connected patient. And above all: check your own credibility as a pharma company in the eyes of patients: your bespoke data on your company, for its different affiliations and therapy areas, based on 6 years of global data on corporate reputation in the perspective of patients and patient groups.

Scooped by rob halkes
Scoop.it!

The Global Digital Marketing Gap · Forrester

The Global Digital Marketing Gap · Forrester | New pharma | Scoop.it

Husson: Over the past few years, I was lucky enough to travel to many different places: in most European countries, in the US, in Brazil, in the Middle East, in India, in Indonesia or very recently in Japan and Thailand. The digital revolution is happening all over the place and it is fascinating to see how it is changing people’s habits. In particular, mobile is a game changer in most economies and this will only accelerate. (..)

Significant economic, political, and technology trends will strain global digital strategies further by elevating the importance of local relevance. Over the next few years, we expect the following trends:

  • Geopolitical shifts drive global fragmentation..
  • Empowered consumers seek brands who reflect their local values (..)
  • Innovative local competitors emerge (..)
  • Mobile’s primacy forces a re-evaluation of local offline marketing(..)
  • Rise of conversational interfaces reward local knowledge. (...)

 

To close this capability gap, marketers must evolve their cultural mindset, adapt their organization to share more responsibilities with local teams, implement an insights-driven approach to personalize experiences, and upgrade their global technology infrastructure.

rob halkes's insight:

Unexpected(?) trend in Engaging global brands with local customers/users. Thomas Hudson: ".. counter intuitively, digital complicates global marketing... digital increases customer expectations for relevance, giving local brands the edge. Such competition exposes global brands’ digital marketing gap, forcing them to localize their digital approach." I gathered this before for Pharma companies: Pharma needs to differentiate to local! See https://lnkd.in/gqb86hV - and here: https://lnkd.in/eDMsDdr .

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

Pharma and the connected patient | Deloitte | PatientView: WHAT PATIENT GROUPS SAID ABOUT HEALTH APPS (INCLUDING THOSE OF PHARMA

Pharma and the connected patient | Deloitte | PatientView: WHAT PATIENT GROUPS SAID ABOUT HEALTH APPS (INCLUDING THOSE OF PHARMA | New pharma | Scoop.it
New research released by the Deloitte UK Centre for Health Solutions explores how digital technology can help pharma embrace patient centricity to remain relevant, profitable, and to deliver better health outcomes.

In April-May 2017 PatientView was commissioned by Deloitte UK Centre for Health solutions to conduct a survey regarding the use of health apps, including those produced or developed by pharma companies. 

The primary objective of the survey was to map the patient usage of health apps and determine patient group views of the usefulness of pharma health apps. 190 patient groups responded to the survey, representing 56 therapy areas from 38 countries.

A summary of the results is available on PatientView's website; the final Deloitte report and blog results are available on Deloitte's website.

 

Conclusion
Viewed  collectively, our data paints a picture of a modern day patient who:

  • is a regular user of health apps across multiple different devices
  • is highly trusting of apps produced by their patient group peers and is willing to share data with healthcare teams
    co-ordinating their care
  • is distrusting of apps produced by, and is not very willing to share data with, large corporations, whether they are tech companies or life science companies
  • is not incentivised by monetary gains to share data but prioritises transparency over the use of and anonymity of their data
  • wants the producer of the apps to be transparent in its dealings and collaborative in its app development, especially with apps developed by pharma.

These attributes provide insights that companies can utilise to inform their app development strategies and address the concerns of patients. Indeed, if pharma is able to demonstrate clearly that these requirements are met, then patient-centricity will have a chance of gaining traction. However, if their needs remain unmet, then patient adoption of health apps, in particular those created by pharma, will remain low.

Links to Research Results:

 
rob halkes's insight:

To use Health Apps, patients appear to have trust in apps produced by patient groups and peers. They are willing to share data with coordinating their care. Trust is the main factor that indicates use of apps. Using apps or sharing data with large corporations is less likely. Pharma and Devices companies could best partner with care coordinating and providing teams and enable them to help patients in the best ways.

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

Why the dramatic changes in drug spend over the last 20 years? Understanding the Dynamics of Drug Expenditure: Shares, Levels, Compositions, and Drivers

Why the dramatic changes in drug spend over the last 20 years? Understanding the Dynamics of Drug Expenditure: Shares, Levels, Compositions, and Drivers | New pharma | Scoop.it

While the level of drug expenditure is closely watched and often commented upon, the composition of that expenditure and its dynamics are less

This report describes the dynamic changes in the composition of drug expenditure over the period 1995 to 2015 for five developed countries—France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Over the past 20 years, therapies that once dominated spending are now dramatically less important, while other entirely new therapies have risen to a significant share of spending.

Key insights include:

  • Nominal drug expenditure measured at invoice price level has risen substantially over the past 20 years across all countries analyzed, though less so when normalized for economic and population growth.
  • When composition of drug expenditure is examined, the classes that dominated spending 20 years ago have shrunk considerably as innovation and product lifecycles shift costs downward.
  • Older therapies have declining importance as many have lost patent protection and costs have reduced considerably, while others have seen continuous innovation and have risen in share of spending.

Across all five countries, some common patterns emerge in terms of the therapy areas that now make up the large portion of spending and those that have declined. That said, each country has a distinct set of dynamics, spending compositions, and underlying clinical, disease, and policy drivers.

Download the report here

rob halkes's insight:

Some noteworthy conclusions at the summary of the report on drugs spend in period 1955 - 2015:

"Nominal drug expenditure measured at invoice price level has risen substantially over the past 20 years across all five countries analysed - France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom (U.K.) and the United States (U.S.) - but less so when
normalized for economic and population growth and especially in the most recent decade.
By contrast, drug spend has not risen as rapidly as a percentage of health expenditure, and for some countries has declined from peaks in the late 1990s.
The amount of spending for new branded drugs – those on the market for less than 2 years in that country – is generally less than 10% of spending in all countries analyzed. At least 60% of drug utilization by patients are drugs that are generic or do not require a prescription."
Inspiring read for policymakers too!
 
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes
Scoop.it!

Today's most inspiring women in the pharmaceutical industry 2017

Today's most inspiring women in the pharmaceutical industry 2017 | New pharma | Scoop.it
The number of women in power is on the rise in the pharmaceutical industry. Meet some of the leading ladies who are paving the way.
rob halkes's insight:

"The willingness to break out of the comfort zones" seems to be a critical attitude for women now  in pharma top executive positions. Yet, I see from some of them how they had a career before that doesn't make their actual position a surprise. It is willingness from both sides: those who offer their prospects and those that hire them. Some is changing for the good in pharma: but are we in time? ...

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

The Globalisation of the Pharmaceutical Industry – IFPMA

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

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

 

rob halkes's insight:

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

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

Lifetime Trends in Biopharmaceutical Innovation Recent Evidence and Implications

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

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

rob halkes's insight:

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

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

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

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 | Scoop.it

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


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!

more...
Scooped by rob halkes
Scoop.it!

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 | Scoop.it

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

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

 
Advertisement

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

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

Getting to the root of the problem

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

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

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

How we can do a better job together

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

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

Increasing access through bilingual initiatives

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

Greater access for greater understanding

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

 

rob halkes's insight:

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

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

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

Save

rob halkes's insight:

Pharma started about thinking in terms of servicing health care "beyond the pill" in about 2000. Today developments have been increased by ideas of 'integrated care' and "precision medicine" the latest concept indicates fine tuning of medications to personal physical and genome conditions. Diagnostics are all in the game, that is. But a study in which I participated [ http://1.eyeforpharma.com/LP=5676 ] made clear that development and creation is one, servicing and delivering is two. Partnerships for example are unavoidable is one in in the game for sustainable business.

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

The World's Most Reputable Pharmaceutical Companies In 2016

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

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

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

more...
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
Scoop.it!

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 | Scoop.it

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

 

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

 

Mark Merritt, president of PCMA, which represent the nation’s pharmacy benefit management (PBM) companies, pointed out that only 7 percent of Americans blame his association’s industry for high drug prices, despite the brand prescription drug manufacturers’ attempts to shift the blame to PBMs (read “Pharma CEO Rips Insurance CEOs a New One! Exposes Salaries, Blames Them for High Drug Prices”: http://sco.lt/6kN065 and Tracking Who Makes Money On A Brand-Name Drug”: http://sco.lt/7h31Ht).

 

Further Reading:

  • “Kaiser Health Tracking Poll: Americans Weigh In on How to Keep Drug Costs Down”: http://sco.lt/5EGuMT
  • “Tracking Who Makes Money On A Brand-Name Drug”: http://sco.lt/7h31Ht
  • “Time's Person of the Year Donald Trump Promises He Will ‘Bring Down Drug Prices’”: http://sco.lt/7pHXyz
  • “Pharma CEO Rips Insurance CEOs a New One! Exposes Salaries, Blames Them for High Drug Prices”: http://sco.lt/6kN065

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. 

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

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 | Scoop.it

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

  • 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

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

Pharma's Progress In Precision Medicine

Pharma's Progress In Precision Medicine | New pharma | Scoop.it

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

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

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

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

 

rob halkes's insight:

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

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

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

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

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

 

Annual report 2015 see download here


The 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

http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Annual_report/2016/06/WC500209168.pdf

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

Access to Medicine Index 2016

Access to Medicine Index 2016 | New pharma | Scoop.it

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

2016 Access to Medicine Index Overall Ranking

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

 etc.

rob halkes's insight:

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

See all and the download here

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

CORPORATE REPUTATION of PHARMA 2015

CORPORATE REPUTATION of PHARMA 2015 | New pharma | Scoop.it

THE CORPORATE REPUTATION OF THE PHARMA INDUSTRY IN 2015: THE PERSPECTIVE OF 209 PATIENT GROUPS  with an interest in MENTAL HEALTH (2nd edition)

Report published by PatientView,   Monday 14th November 2016

 

THE  20 COMPANIES ASSESSED ...
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

 

COMPANIES ASSESSED FOR ...

  • 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 patient-view.com

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

Global Outlook for Medicines Through 2021, Quintiles IMS

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

Quintiles IMS Webinar: December 8th:

Global Outlook for Medicines Through 2021

 

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

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

 

 

See this link

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

 

rob halkes's insight:

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

See this link

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

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

COPORATE REPUTATION FOR PHARMA 2015

COPORATE REPUTATION FOR PHARMA 2015 | New pharma | Scoop.it

THE CORPORATE REPUTATION OF THE PHARMA INDUSTRY IN 2015: THE PERSPECTIVE OF 90 PATIENT GROUPS  with an interest in HEART AND CIRCULATORY CONDITIONS (2nd edition)
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: http://www.patient-view.com/corp-rep---pharma-therapy-areas.html

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

Consumer priorities in Health Care Survey | Deloitte US

Consumer priorities in Health Care Survey | Deloitte US | New pharma | Scoop.it

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.

 

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

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

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

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)

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

Connecting Insights

Connecting Insights | New pharma | Scoop.it

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!

more...
No comment yet.