SAMPLE PAGES-PV CORPORATE REP PHARMA-JAN 2013.pdf Download this file Increasing numbers of pharmaceutical companies are seeking to redefine their relationships with patients, recasting their companies as more patient-centric.
rob halkes's insight:
Good work from patientview !
Is it that patients exectations have risen because of having become more conscious about what pharma could do, and doesn't, or is it that pharma has fallen back in its actions to the public... ?
I can see rise in pharma's social media presence and good intentions in informing the public better about their activities. But is doesn't seem enough. There's more to change of a business branche than just a facebook page.
And, let'sbe honest: it is not solely about the companies; it's also about all stakeholders to the pahrma branche: authorities alike physicians..
Increased Use of Twitter at a Medical Conference: A Report and a Review of the Educational Opportunities
rob halkes's insight:
"New" pharma is in a changing process of rearranging its channels, messages and relationship with target audiences. Although they are not so much early innovators as a brach, they do want and try to get on. Such a pity that they do not find too many credits for their trying.. It might also be due to the fact that health care itself isnot known as a very brught and eager innovators' branch. LEt's be happy with those who try and do find bes paractices along the way. But still, I guess, the main finding seems to be: the length of the journey to take is long.. In my view that is precisely the thing thats thrills me for one! We are going to discover how much we don't know about health, care for health and medical care. Let's be determined to that road!
Welcome to the 1st Annual "Top Ten Internet-Smart Doctors in the World". Now, why, you may ask, do we presume to say "World"?
Because the internet, as Mr. Gates says, has made the world a global village.
On the internet, one can find out many wonderful things, and, for this page, you have access to things that are happening in faraway lands, as if they were next door.
Doctors are increasingly using the internet, to communicate, to educate, and to use sometimes as medical devices. And now docs are tackling social media, which a few to the Top Ten do. The Top Ten come from all over, from Australia to the Bay area. There is one from the Netherlands, one from Hungary, one from India, and one from Australia. The other six are Yanks. And they are all MDs.
Characteristics that the top ten share are traits of enthusiasm for their craft, intelligence, diligence, intimate knowledge of how the net can be leveraged to benefit healthcare, and love of teaching.
rob halkes's insight:
Congratulations to Eric Topol, Mike Cadogan, Berci Mesko, Pieter Kubben, Peter Diamantis, Cameron Powell, Iltifat Husain, Summer Sehti, Daniel Kraft and Kevin Pho!
On Monday, a federal appeals court in New York threw out the conviction of a pharma sales rep for promoting off-label use of a prescription drug. The court found the sales rep’s First Amendment right to free speech had been violated. Judge Denny Chin wrote: "In the fields of medicine and public health, where information can save lives, it only furthers the public interest to ensure that decisions about the use of prescription drugs, including off-label usage, are intelligent and well-informed.”
The ruling essentially follows the notion that "The more information available to everyone, the better. If physicians can discuss alternative uses of drugs, others should be able to do the same.”
So far, not surprisingly, FDA has not commented on the ruling.
What does it mean?
What does this mean for FDA?
What does it mean for patients?
What does this mean for pharmaceutical companies today?
If any change is to come from this, I expect it to be slow. It’s definitely something to keep an eye on. And this is just one court's decision. Future decisions for similar cases, as well as escalation to the Supreme Court, may further solidify the situation one way or the other.
Cegedim Relationship Management has undertaken its third annual survey of life sciences professionals in the United States to provide a real-time snapshot of this year’s trends.
This year reveals distinct concerns with the flux of the current commercial model and reinforces the support for digital solutions. Nearly three-fourths (74%) of respondents point to the changing commercial business model as the biggest issue keeping them up at night.
The formidable issues of concern remain constant from 2011 to 2012, especially the evolution of the current business model which holds fast as the primary concern.
Based on a scale from one to five, nearly three-fourths (74%) of respondents ranked the changing commercial business model as their first, second or third priority of concern.
As Lars Bogner, Head of Section, Digital Center of Excellence, Corporate Marketing, Leo Pharma, stated in his talk at this year’s DigiPharm event people have have thousands of conversations online everyday which could impact your brand. Are you listening to them?
Below are the top 5 tips inspired by Lars’ presentation:
Looking into the future of the value chain of the pharmaceutical, biotech and life sciences industry. These reports provide an in-depth analysis of research and development (R&D), sales and marketing or commercial, supply chain functions.
The majority of online Europeans don’t want to learn more about prescription drugs directly from pharmaceutical companies, according to new research.
But the study, from Manhattan Research, found that a sizable minority - 40 per cent - did want more drug information from pharma, as long as it doesn’t reach them via Facebook or Twitter. The Cybercitizen Health Europe found that among consumers already using, or interested in, online information and tools from pharmaceutical companies, only 13 per cent wanted to access this content on Facebook and 5 per cent on Twitter.
In contrast, the study found 43 per cent of this audience would like to obtain pharma resources from websites about conditions and diseases...
The report also outlined an area of opportunity for pharma to provide practical patient education, with online consumers indicating they are much more interested in accessing online resources such as disease and treatment information and condition management tools, than in online contests and games.
Here is the first of five anonymous interviews with healthcare professionals from a range of different demographics, to find out how they typically engage with pharma.
To coincide with our medical communications focus month, pharmaphorum speaks with five healthcare professionals to find out how they typically engage with pharma and their thoughts on how this could be improved in the future.
Throughout this series, we are looking to learn:
• How doctors typically engage with pharma companies?
• What a good interaction with pharma is like?
• What common characteristics define the pharma representatives with whom doctors typically have good interactions with?
• Would doctors value details and data from pharma around late stage trials activity and the new drugs pipeline?
• If yes, how would they like to receive this information, and through what channels?
• From a trust perspective, do doctors believe that pharma companies supply information in a transparent way?
• Other than drug information, what else is or could be provided by pharma companies to support a doctor’s work or create better interactions?
• What one thing could pharma companies provide doctors with through engagement that would be most useful in the future?
• Do modern technologies, such as tele-reach detailing and use of iPads, add value to doctor’s knowledge and interaction with pharma?
rob halkes's insight:
In first impression it looks strange: an anonimous interview? But truth is, as in my own experience, that doctors speak "off the record" differently about value of pharmaceutical companies than they do "in public". Hence it is commendable that Pharmaphorum shows some of the issues "back stage".
What is #pharma100? pharma, top 100 influencers in pharma. Healthcare Social Media Hashtag. Real-time Analytics.
rob halkes's insight:
Second time in a row: changes can be seen. But also, influence of period on which survey for nominations is made. I can see relations between those that are on hollidays, like Andrew Spong, and those that aren't, like John Nosta..
Surveys and nominations and, for that matter: lists creations, are highly influenced by time factors, and popularity of people involved. Indeed: who is able to activate most people to vote for oneself.
It is not that I am against lists, but we have to interpret them with care...
Imagine these effects when quality of doctors are at stake... ;-)
John Mack, created a preso on his views of the nealry foregone year. Pharma has made a development indeed.
But has it gone as you expected it?
I for one think not: acknowledging what new opportunities have arisen for pharma, stays a hard thing to do for management. The hardest thing? In my observation, as I can infer so from my discussions with them, is the (only partly) departure from calling routines as the major activity to market to promote one's products. All centres around developing e-detailing and with it larger connections to one's target groups.
In the period from about 2007 till now, much has been published about the new business/commercial model for pharma. Recently we have completed a way to do so, with demonstrating data and all.
Yet, it is still a long road to go, before we see pharma iinovate to real health care markets, indeed.
Pharma: from (e)detailing to physician and patient excellence, a new commercial approach.
The demand for a new commercial model in Pharma is striking. Lots of talk about social media, KAM, gaming, mobile and all kinds of excellences: customer, sales and marketing.
But what's the roadmap starting from the current situation of pharma's commercial business approach, to get to a new commercial relationship for the (local affiliates) of the pharmaceutical industry to its very customers?
I invite you to the scetch of this.
I made this outline on the basis of having gone that road and now look back on the (very) positive results.
Hold yourself to your seat: it might feel like a roller coaster! But doesn't just make that all the fun?
You may challenge me ;-) but thanks for your attention anyway!
Emily Willingham writes: According to this Washington Post longread by Peter Whoriskey, the bald truth about industry-funded clinical trials for new drugs is not pretty..
This history of “abuse and distortion,” even if the relative number of cases is limited, leaves consumers wondering how they can tell what’s trustworthy.
What’s a consumer to do? What any consumer should always do: Caveat emptor. We can do no more than that as consumers.
But for people whose therapy choices are limited to new arrivals, whose decisions are about life or prolongation of life versus impending death, not only is waiting a luxury they cannot afford, they may well be the ones whom time tests.
I’m not one of those who thinks that “Big Pharma” is a monolith of evil trying to make a buck, regardless of human costs. The thousands of researchers in industry are not members of a secret cabal obsessed only with immense wealth. But if industry wants to shine up a reputation dimmed by suspect behaviors of some of its own, voluntarily turning to independent evaluation and reporting of transparent data sets is one step toward polishing away some of that tarnish.
So says Emily...
For a start of discussion: the reseraches who initiated the reserach, one could state they are objective researchers as well, aren't they?
I have witnessed reaerchers state that all pharmaceutical research money should be transfered to "neutral and objective" reserachers to perform the reserach! I would say: who is to select them? reserachers are at leas dependent on the very job they have - and keeping up the job, at least in competition with other independent reserachers, might make them less independent..?
In order to continue to be viable in the next decade, the pharmaceutical industry is adapting in ways that might seem surprising just a few years ago. The pressure to reduce costs coupled with the need to be more innovative and still comply with U.S.
In September Roche UK invited representatives from 50 patient groups for an intriguing event at The Wellcome Collection in London.
The first part of this article covered Roche’s goals for the Share+ social media and digital summit and I’ll now turn the patient groups themselves and the issues they face when it comes to social media and digital technology.
Challenges mentioned by the audience during the sessions included: how to make websites more user-friendly for the elderly; developing local social media policies; and building and mobilising patient communities to advocate for better access to medicines or services.
Can online social networks encourage improved health behavior? GE Healthcare recently commissioned consumer research related to this topic and convened a global panel of experts to discuss it, as well.
The collective results show that engagement is notable but there’s work to do to convert conversations into changes in behavior.
The survey found out that 26 percent of U.S. online adults have discussed health information online—through social media, online communities, message boards or forums—in the past 12 months. It also found that a conservative 30 percent of those who had discussed health information online have changed a health behavior, such as a change in diet or fitness, as a result.
According to the survey, many online adults agreed that others knowing about their diet, health and fitness, and/or specific medical condition(s) is the top concern to discussing health information online (46 percent).
However, during the GE Healthcare virtual roundtable on social networking in health, held in October 2012, actively followed on Twitter, the panel of global experts stressed that accuracy of information should be even more top of mind for consumers (vs. privacy).
How can pharma engage with payers who are less digitally savvy than their clinical counterparts and are more than a little sceptical about information and where it comes from?
Digitally enabled solutions have and continue to transform the way that healthcare is monitored and delivered, leading to better patient outcomes and efficiencies in the delivery of healthcare.
Digital has transformed the way the pharma industry engages and communicates with some of its key customers. From disease awareness websites, to discussion forums, to self-detailing, the industry is increasingly incorporating digital platforms as a critical component in the commercialisation of a medicine.
However, when it comes to payers, it seems that one of the industry’s most important customers has been largely excluded from this ‘digital evolution’. While the industry is always being told how much time key customers are spending online, and educated about their digital behaviours, there is little to inform payer digital communication programmes....
Sharing your scoops to your social media accounts is a must to distribute your curated content. Not only will it drive traffic and leads through your content, but it will help show your expertise with your followers.
How to integrate my topics' content to my website?
Integrating your curated content to your website or blog will allow you to increase your website visitors’ engagement, boost SEO and acquire new visitors. By redirecting your social media traffic to your website, Scoop.it will also help you generate more qualified traffic and leads from your curation work.
Distributing your curated content through a newsletter is a great way to nurture and engage your email subscribers will developing your traffic and visibility.
Creating engaging newsletters with your curated content is really easy.