Market Research Report
Patient Centricity 2.0
|Published by||Cutting Edge Information||Product code||374703|
|Published||Content info||134 Pages
Delivery time: 1-2 business days
|Patient Centricity 2.0|
|Published: August 31, 2016||Content info: 134 Pages||
The life sciences industry is growing to accommodate more competitors and stakeholders. Companies operating in this space face more competitors than ever before. To launch successful products, pharmaceutical and medical device companies must not only satisfy efficacy and outcomes demands, but they must offer "beyond the pill" solutions for healthcare consumers. As patients become more informed and active in their treatment decisions, life science firms benefit from reaching out to these end users directly.
Previously, pharmaceutical and device companies could rely heavily on messages of brand efficacy and safety to drive market access and product uptake. However, in addition to these traditional success metrics, regulatory bodies now look to patientreported outcomes and insights to inform access and pricing decisions. As such, companies must transition from brand-focused to patient-centric operations. For many companies, this transition means incorporating the patient voice as early as molecule discovery and implementing patient-focused initiatives throughout a product's lifecycle.
This report examines how life science companies are establishing patient-centric ideals throughout their operations. Many companies have issued companywide mandates to encourage consumer-focus across all organizations, while others have dedicated functions to drive patient-centricity. Research also examines patient-centric activities and initiatives implemented across the industry. This report profiles specific patient initiatives across nine life science companies.
Cutting Edge Information analysts synthesized the following five key recommendations from the full breadth and depth of this project's research. These principles are signposts to help improve your patient-centric strategies and programs. These points emphasize this study's central and most critical concepts.
Patient-centric initiatives can serve many different types of patient communities, disease states and objectives. No two initiatives are identical. However, teams planning patient-centric initiatives will often undergo similar processes of brainstorming and designing to create their desired initiatives. This process entails five main questions:
Once teams answer these questions, they will have a sturdy framework around which to design their patient-centric initiatives.
With growing discussion surrounding patient-centric ideals, many life science companies are exploring the option of creating dedicated functions to encourage and implement their patient-centered goals throughout the organization. Dedicated teams or centers of excellence demonstrate a company's commitment to supporting positive patient experiences. These teams are often tasked with collecting and distributing patient input and with developing patient-focused initiatives.
Figure E.1 examines the presence of dedicated patient-centric teams or centers of excellence among surveyed life science organizations. At this time, the majority of surveyed companies (56%) handle patient-centric strategy and program implementation on an ad hoc basis. However, among all surveyed companies, more than one-third (38%) maintain a dedicated patient-centric function. Another 6% of surveyed companies are planning to develop a dedicated group in the future. A surveyed Company B executive explained, "I definitely see that trend in the industry, and I can definitely see where you might need that to develop some corporate capabilities."
The prevalence of dedicated teams or centers of excellence also varies by geography. These patient-centric teams are more commonplace among surveyed US firms (44%) as compared to EU, Canada and Australia-based operations. In fact, 11% of surveyed US teams anticipate implementing dedicated functions in the future.
To embrace patient-centered attitudes effectively, life science companies must craft an all-encompassing ideal that is able to impact all aspects of the organization. As such, firms must call on multiple stakeholders to best define corporate attitudes and determine realistic goals for implementation.
For example, Top 50 Company B calls on its commercialization, operations and clinical development functions to define the companywide patient-centric ideal. These functions are Company B's largest stakeholders in these undertakings. However, this firm also calls on expertise from its legal and regulatory groups - as well as other internal experts as needed.
Figure E.2 highlights functional involvement in developing patient-centric attitudes by company size. Organization size often influences the groups most likely to contribute to conversations regarding companywide or teamwide ideals. At surveyed Top 10 pharmaceutical firms, dedicated patient-centric groups are most commonly called on to craft corporate ideals on the topic, at 75%. Brand teams and corporate communications groups follow at 63% and 54%, respectively.
Smaller companies may not have the necessary in-house resources or needs to develop dedicated patient-centric teams. These organizations are more likely to look to other functions to develop patient-centered attitudes and goals. The largest percentage of Top 50 companies surveyed - 71% - look to medical affairs teams for this task; another 57% look to brand teams for this insight. Surveyed small and device companies are more likely to look to brand teams (71%) and medical affairs (63%).
As the importance of patient-centric initiatives grows for both pharmaceutical companies and patients, many companies are establishing dedicating teams to develop and manage these programs. While the exact nature of these groups varies by company and by region, they represent a logical next step in the development of the patient-first approach that many companies are adopting.
Figure E.3 shows that dedicated patient-centric groups are heavily involved across all stages of program conceptualization and implementation. Among those surveyed, 68% work on identifying unmet needs, and 61% shape overall initiative strategy. When it comes to actually implementing planned initiatives, the regional differences begin to emerge. Among dedicated US groups, 89% work on delivering patient-centric programs while just 44% of surveyed European, Canadian, and Australian groups do so.
This broad scope of responsibility reflects the position and experience of dedicated groups. Many individuals who are joining dedicated teams come from marketing backgrounds and have hands-on experience with products. This level of experience brings an in-depth knowledge of commercial strategy that allows these teams to craft programs that are in-line with current priorities. Additionally, team members with market research or business development backgrounds are well equipped to determine programs' effectiveness and make sure that initiatives are meeting patient needs.
IN-PERSON INITIATIVES MAXIMIZE ROI ON PATIENT-CENTRIC ACTIVITIES
Calculating ROI on patient-centric initiatives can be difficult, especially when "hard" commercial metrics such as a change in sales are much harder to collect than "soft" metrics like patient satisfaction. To maximize the ROI of patient-centric programs, these initiatives should be planned alongside existing commercial operations, and the subsequent ROI should be calculated with the accompanying commercial activities in mind. Attempting to calculate a program's ROI in isolation risks diluting the initiative's value and may not effectively capture their impact among patients.
According to surveyed patient-centric groups, face-to-face activities represent the highest ROI among the current program formats (see Figure E.4). When compared with purely digital platforms, face-to-face programs may require more costs up front. But they are able to most effectively meet patient needs. Phone support is also seen as high-value among survey respondents.
If companies are looking into digital platforms, websites and mobile applications can be used. However, online platforms are most successful when they incorporate multiple functions and have a broad scope. Apps, in particular, may suffer if they are too pigeonholed to one specific purpose. Patients are more likely to consider and consistently use an app that provides them with a range of functionality across an extended period of time.
Analysts developed the information upon which this study is based through both primary and secondary sources. Cutting Edge Information's process for collecting and analyzing information encompasses two distinct tools: quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews. Both tools are necessary for understanding not only the hard metrics included in this study, but also the reasoning behind the metrics.
Cutting Edge Information's analysts began developing the quantitative survey tool used in this study by working closely with life sciences industry executives. Once the research team completed the survey design, they recruited study participants from pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies and medical device firms worldwide to collect data on patient-centric operations and activities. The research team collected all survey data through primary research with front-line marketing access experts. Altogether, Cutting Edge Information collected and analyzed data sets from over 50 teams of all sizes and geographic locations. Study participants included C-suite level executives as well as vice presidents and directors throughout organizations, as well as industry experts working for high-level consultancies.
After study participants submitted a survey, analysts used qualitative interviews to uncover more detailed information. Cutting Edge Information used the telephone interviews with pharmaceutical and medical device executives to understand challenges and solutions to meeting the demands for patient-centricity throughout the organization. Not all participants agreed to telephone interviews. Analysts gathered enough information from its completed interviews, however, to properly interpret the data. In return for these parties' contributions, Cutting Edge Information distributed the study results to all participants. Analysts also used additional secondary research focused on public information related to specific companies and regulations.
To ensure that Cutting Edge Information protects the identities and privacy of all study participants, this research does not name the companies or products it examines, nor does it link specific companies with therapeutic areas. Company blinding is a critical device that allows survey respondents to comfortably provide accurate data for studies such as this one.
One FTE is equivalent to one dedicated individual working full-time at a specific function, though it may in fact be a combination of two or more people each working part-time on a task.
In portions of its analysis, Cutting Edge Information divided surveyed companies by company type and size to present more accurate comparisons between data sets. Within the pharmaceutical and biotech industries, analysts divided the surveyed firms into three sizes based on Pharmaceutical Executive magazine's 2015 assessment. The categories used to analyze the data are: