Pharmaguy's Insights Into Drug Industry News
187.0K views | +12 today
Follow
Pharmaguy's Insights Into Drug Industry News
Pharmaguy curates and provides insights into selected drug industry news and issues.
Curated by Pharma Guy
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scooped by Pharma Guy
Scoop.it!

Why Does #Pharma Have Problems With Achieving Patient Centricity Success?

Why Does #Pharma Have Problems With Achieving Patient Centricity Success? | Pharmaguy's Insights Into Drug Industry News | Scoop.it

According to IMS a majority of companies have attempted patient-centric initiatives but only a third have reported any success.  

 

We keep hearing about patient centricity but the pressure on sales has ensured that most patient centric strategies are too much about conversion than helping patients.

 

IMS reports that nearly 70% reported that their organization has not been adequately successful with patient-centric initiatives , and only 4% reported a high degree of success.  Why?

Pharma Guy's insight:

eyeforpharma has addressed, the WHAT, the WHY, and the HOW behind patient-centricity in their latest magazine.

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Pharma Guy
Scoop.it!

PhRMA Disputes So-Called "Big Jump" in Drug Prices

PhRMA Disputes So-Called "Big Jump" in Drug Prices | Pharmaguy's Insights Into Drug Industry News | Scoop.it

In case you missed it, a new IMS Institute health care brief found that net price increases in 2014 for branded medicines was the “lowest in the past five years” after accounting for discounts, rebates, coupons and other concessions to payers.


The brief complements research the IMS Institute previously published that found invoice brand drug prices increased 13.5 percent last year. However, this price growth did not reflect the substantial – and typical – discounts negotiated by insurers and pharmacy benefit managers.


According to the new brief, after accounting for all of the concessions, prices increased by just 5.5 percent last year, which was in line with overall health care spending growth. According to IMS, “payers appear to be limiting overall branded product price growth through the negotiation of discounts and rebates.”

Pharma Guy's insight:

However, an independent study of retail Rx dermatology drug prices published in JAMA Dermatology, revealed price increases for these drugs increased as much as 400% between 2009 band 2015 (http://sco.lt/5JLdE9). 

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Pharma Guy
Scoop.it!

Drug Spending Growth Surges Again in 2015

Drug Spending Growth Surges Again in 2015 | Pharmaguy's Insights Into Drug Industry News | Scoop.it

Total spending on medicines in the U.S. reached $310 billion in 2015 on an estimated net price basis, up 8.5 percent from the previous year, according to a new report issued today by the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics.

Invoice spending is based on IMS Health reported values from wholesaler transactions measured at trade/invoice prices and exclude off-invoice discounts and rebates that reduce net revenue received by manufacturers. Net spending reflects company recognized revenue after off-invoice discounts, rebates and price concessions are applied.


According to IMS, the increase was driven primarily by a wave of "innovative" new medicines. Take a closer look at the data here.

more...
ThePlanetaryArchives - BlackHorseMedia - San Francisco's curator insight, April 16, 2016 10:53 AM
"Innovative" drugs? There are no drugs that actually cure any disease, and America is sicker and fatter than ever. One day these people will be revealed for the snake-oil salesmen that they are. Except snake-oil actually works.....
Scooped by Pharma Guy
Scoop.it!

Ad agencies “intend to do right” by Wikipedia, But Are They?

Ad agencies “intend to do right” by Wikipedia, But Are They? | Pharmaguy's Insights Into Drug Industry News | Scoop.it

Following a roundtable discussion earlier this year, a number of communications firms and professional bodies have issued a statement on their commitment to Wikipedia and its continued credibility.


Published on Wikipedia, the statement was backed by more than 30 leading firms, including Ogilvy & Mather, FleishmanHillard and Weber Shandwick. Other signatories active in the healthcare sector include Porter Novelli, Edelman and the Chandler Chicco Companies.

The statement was also supported by professional organisations the Chartered Institute of Public Relations, the Institute for Public Relations and the Council of Public Relations Firms.


“We recognise Wikipedia's unique and important role as a public knowledge resource,” said the statement, acknowledging the growth of the website as the first port of call for patients and healthcare professionals when it comes to healthcare information.


“We also acknowledge that the prior actions of some in our industry have led to a challenging relationship with the community of Wikipedia editors,” it added, before going on to commit to abide by the following principles:


  • To seek to better understand the fundamental principles guiding Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects
  • To act in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, particularly those related to 'conflict of interest'
  • To abide by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use
  • To the extent we become aware of potential violations of Wikipedia policies by our respective firms, to investigate the matter and seek corrective action, as appropriate and consistent with our policies
  • Beyond our own firms, to take steps to publicise our views and counsel our clients and peers to conduct themselves accordingly.
Pharma Guy's insight:


IMS Health should sign on too: A Wikipedia "group" called WikiCorrect-Health, which claims to train "pharma companies on how to use Wikipedia ethically and also legally" was/is acting in stealth mode.

It appears, however, that the group is not behaving ethically. They have so far not revealed who they are but claim to be "a team of 5" at this point. It is against Wikipedia policy for multiple people to use a single account. Therefore, whoever they are, WikiCorrect-Health lacks transparency and is NOT operating "legally" by Wikipedia standards. And they get paid by pharma to help the industry "use Wikipedia ethically and also legally???

After reading my blog post -- "Is Pharma Working with Wikipedia to Ensure Its Drug Information is Accurate and Up-to-Date?" -- Gary Monk suggested that "one or more of them [WikiCorrect-Health] may work for IMS Health, in which case there is again a serious lack of transparency."

I think Gary Monk is correct about this group being IMS Health. Here's why:

In a recent report, IMS reminded us that Wikipedia articles on health issues are "in flux" and that there is a need for knowledgeable editors to keep the information as current and unbiased as possible. "There is yet to be established a broad approach to funneling the vast resources of healthcare institutions, the pharmaceutical industry, regulators and patient groups into the information that is being used by millions of patients," said IMS.

IMS further said that "none of the traditional stakeholders for patient information – such as regulators and pharmaceutical companies - is actively engaged in the development of information or in ensuring its correctness."

My guess is that after (or even before) reading the IMS report, PhRMA and/or several pharma companies hired IMS Health to be its "eyes and ears" and sometimes its "editor" on Wikipedia. The fact that they are doing this in stealth mode, however, is not cool.

more...
No comment yet.