Cover Image
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
Price
Back to Top
Patient Centricity 2.0
Published: August 31, 2016 Content info: 134 Pages
Description

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.

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PATIENT-CENTRIC SUCCESS

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.

DETERMINE AUDIENCE, OBJECTIVE AND ROI TO BUILD THE FRAMEWORK FOR A PATIENT-CENTRIC INITIATIVE

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:

  • 1. Who is the target audience? This should be the easiest question to answer. In short, the target audience will be a patient population related to the company's therapeutic area or product that the team believes would benefit from some sort of intervention.
  • 2. What is the objective? What exactly does the target audience need? In some cases, the patient population needs more education. In other situations, they need reminders to take their medications. Still, other patient populations may benefit from financial assistance or personal interactions with patient advocates. Efficient teams will select focused objectives and use these to drive all other decisions.
  • 3. How will the objectives be achieved? The initiative's platform(s) and/or operations will depend heavily on the target audience and objectives. Digital formats will only work for patient populations that are tech-savvy, and certain objectives will resonate better on one type of platform over another.
  • 4. How long will the initiative last? Some initiatives are meant to only spike interest or education during a product's first year on market while others are intended to support patients for as long as needed. The answer to this question is critical for planning out the initiative's long-term resources.
  • 5. How will ROI be measured? Return on investment (ROI) can be one of the toughest aspects of a patient-centric initiative. For some initiatives and teams, ROI is not measured or even relevant. But for others, it is crucial for maintaining resources and company buy-in. Forward-thinking teams establish the criteria they will use to measure ROI before beginning an initiative.

Once teams answer these questions, they will have a sturdy framework around which to design their patient-centric initiatives.

ANTICIPATE THE GROWTH OF DEDICATED PATIENT-CENTRIC TEAMS

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.

Figure E.1: Presence of Dedicated Patient-Centric Teams, by Geography

image1

INCORPORATE MULTIPLE INTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS IN DEFINING CORPORATE OR TEAM PATIENT-CENTRIC ATTITUDES

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%).

Figure E.2: Functional Involvement in Developing Patient-Centric Attitudes, by Company Size

image2

ALLOCATE BROAD RANGE OF RESPONSIBILITIES TO DEDICATED GROUPS

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.

Figure E.3: Scope of Responsibility for Patient- Centric Activities, by Geography: Dedicated Groups

image3

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.

Figure E.4: Level of ROI for Specific Patient-Centric Distribution Channels

image4

STUDY METHODOLOGY

DATA COLLECTION

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.

COMPANY BLINDING

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.

STUDY DEFINITIONS

FULL-TIME EQUIVALENTS (FTEs)

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.

COMPANY TYPES

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:

  • Top 10 Pharma - These surveyed companies were ranked between 1 and 10 by Pharmaceutical Executive magazine. This designation also included company affiliates outside of the firm's headquarters.
  • Top 50 Pharma - These surveyed companies were ranked between 11 and 50 by Pharmaceutical Executive magazine and companies ranked just outside the Top 50 with similar yearly revenues. This designation also included company affiliates outside of the firm's headquarters.
  • Small Pharma - These surveyed companies were ranked outside of the Top 50 by Pharmaceutical Executive magazine. The small company category also includes small biotechnology firms that responded to the survey. This designation also included company affiliates outside of the firm's headquarters.
  • Medical Device Companies - These companies manufacture medical device products. Their classification is not tied at all to Pharmaceutical Executive magazine's ranking of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.
Table of Contents
Product Code: PH222

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

Emerging Patient-Centric Ideals and Dedicated Teams

  • Defining Patient-Centricity Within Life Science Organizations
  • Implementing and Resourcing Dedicated Patient-Centric Functions
  • Obstacles and Emerging Trends in Patient-Centricity

Patient-Centric Program Management and Distribution Channels

  • Coordinating Responsibilities for Patient-Centric Initiatives
  • Balancing Patient Needs wIth Internal Commercial Priorities

Profiling Patient-Centric Initiatives

  • Patient-Centric Initiative Aggregated Data
  • Patient-Centric Initiative Profiles

Executive Summary

  • Figure E.1: Presence of Dedicated Patient-Centric Teams, by Geography
  • Figure E.2: Functional Involvement in Developing Patient-Centric Attitudes, by Company Size
  • Figure E.3: Scope of Responsibility for Patient-Centric Activities, by Geography: Dedicated Groups
  • Figure E.4: Level of ROI for Specific Patient-Centric Distribution Channels

Emerging Patient-Centric Ideals and Dedicated Teams

Defining Patient-Centricity Within Life Science Organizations

  • Figure 1.1: Collecting the "Patient Voice" to Influence New Pharmaceutical Brand Marketing Tactics
  • Figure 1.2: Organizational Approach to Patient-Centricity: All Companies
  • Figure 1.3: Organizational Approach to Patient-Centricity: By Geography
  • Figure 1.4: Organizational Approach to Patient-Centricity: By Company Size
  • Figure 1.5: Effectiveness Rankings of Communicating and Implementing Patient-Centric Ideals, by Geography
  • Figure 1.6: Effectiveness Rankings of Communicating and Implementing Patient-Centric Ideals, by Company Size
  • Figure 1.7: Functional Involvement in Developing Patient-Centric Attitudes: Global Teams
  • Figure 1.8: Functional Involvement in Developing Patient-Centric Attitudes: US Teams
  • Figure 1.9: Functional Involvement in Developing Patient-Centric Attitudes: EU, Canada and Australia
  • Figure 1.10: Functional Involvement in Developing Patient-Centric Attitudes: Rest-of-World
  • Figure 1.11: Functional Involvement in Developing Patient-Centric Attitudes, by Company Size
  • Figure 1.12: Presence of Dedicated Patient-Centric Teams, by Geography

Implementing and Resourcing Dedicated Patient-Centric Functions

  • Figure 1.13: Age of Dedicated Patient-Centric Teams
  • Figure 1.14: Structural Organization of Patient-Centric Teams
  • Figure 1.15: Executive Level Directly Responsible for Patient-Centric Teams
  • Figure 1.16: Patient-Centric Team Staffing, by Company: 2014
  • Figure 1.17: Patient-Centric Team Staffing, by Company: 2015
  • Figure 1.18: Patient-Centric Team Staffing, by Company: 2016
  • Figure 1.19: Percentage of Staffing Increase for Patient-Centric Teams, by Company

Obstacles and Emerging Trends in Patient-Centricity

  • Figure 1.20: Challenges Facing Patient-Centricity
  • Figure 1.21: Emerging Trends in Patient-Centricity

Patient-Centric Program Distribution and Responsibilities

Coordinating Responsibilities for Patient-Centric Initiatives

  • Figure 2.1: Scope of Responsibility for Patient-Centric Activities, by Geography: Dedicated Groups
  • Figure 2.2: Scope of Responsibility for Patient-Centric Activities, by Company Type: Dedicated Groups
  • Figure 2.3: Scope of Responsibility for Patient-Centric Activities, by Geography: Marketing Umbrella
  • Figure 2.4: Scope of Responsibility for Patient-Centric Activities, by Company Type: Marketing Umbrella
  • Figure 2.5: Scope of Responsibility for Patient-Centric Activities, by Geography: Brand Team
  • Figure 2.6: Scope of Responsibility for Patient-Centric Activities, by Company Type: Brand Team
  • Figure 2.7: Scope of Responsibility for Patient-Centric Activities, by Geography: New Product Planning Team
  • Figure 2.8: Scope of Responsibility for Patient-Centric Activities, by Company Type: New Product Planning Team
  • Figure 2.9: Scope of Responsibility for Patient-Centric Activities, by Geography: Market Access Team
  • Figure 2.10: Scope of Responsibility for Patient-Centric Activities, by Company Type: Market Access Team
  • Figure 2.11: Scope of Responsibility for Patient-Centric Activities, by Geography: Corporate Communications Team
  • Figure 2.12: Scope of Responsibility for Patient-Centric Activities, by Company Type: Corporate Communications Team
  • Figure 2.13: Scope of Responsibility for Patient-Centric Activities, by Geography: Legal / Regulatory Affairs Team
  • Figure 2.14: Scope of Responsibility for Patient-Centric Activities, by Company Type: Legal / Regulatory Affairs
  • Figure 2.15: Scope of Responsibility for Patient-Centric Activities, by Geography: Medical Affairs Team
  • Figure 2.16: Scope of Responsibility for Patient-Centric Activities, by Company Type: Medical Affairs Team
  • Figure 2.17: Scope of Responsibility for Patient-Centric Activities, by Geography: Clinical Development/ R&D Team
  • Figure 2.18: Scope of Responsibility for Patient-Centric Activities, by Company Type: Clinical / R&D Team
  • Figure 2.19: Scope of Responsibility for Patient-Centric Activities, by Geography: Third-Party Vendors or CROs

Balancing Patient Needs with Internal Commercial Priorities

  • Figure 2.20: Patient-Centric Initiatives Used, by Geography
  • Figure 2.21: Patient-Centric Initiatives Used, by Company Type
  • Figure 2.22: Distribution Channels Used for Specific Initiative Types: Rewards Programs
  • Figure 2.23: Distribution Channels Used for Specific Initiative Types: Product Information
  • Figure 2.24: Distribution Channels Used for Specific Initiative Types: Financial Assistance
  • Figure 2.25: Distribution Channels Used for Specific Initiative Types: Measurement and Tracking
  • Figure 2.26: Distribution Channels Used for Specific Initiative Types: Remote or Digital Patient Support Forums
  • Figure 2.27: Distribution Channels Used for Specific Initiative Types: Physician Referrals
  • Figure 2.28: Distribution Channels Used for Specific Initiative Types: Lifestyle Coaching
  • Figure 2.29: Reported ROI for General Patient-Centric Initiatives, by Geography
  • Figure 2.30: Level of ROI for Specific Patient-Centric Distribution Channels
  • Table 2.30: ROI Measurements Used in Specific Patient-Centric Initiative Types
  • Figure 2.31: Presence of Dedicated Patient-Centric or Innovation Funding
  • Figure 2.32: Criteria for Distributing Patient-Centric or Innovation Funding
  • Figure 2.33: Level of Dedicated Patient-Centric or Innovation Funding, by Company

Profiling Patient-Centric Initiatives

Patient-Centric Initiative Aggregated Data

  • Figure 3.1: Percentage of Branded versus Unbranded Patient-Centric Initiatives: All Initiatives
  • Figure 3.2: Annual Revenue of Brands Supported by Patient-Centric Initiatives
  • Figure 3.3: Percentage of Patient-Centric Initiatives Dedicated to Specific Objectives
  • Figure 3.4: Percentage of Patient-Centric Initiatives Using Specific Channels
  • Figure 3.5: Start Time for Patient-Centric Initiatives
  • Figure 3.6: Duration of Patient-Centric Initiatives
  • Figure 3.7: Functions Involved with Patient-Centric Initiatives
  • Figure 3.8: Expected Return on Investment for Patient-Centric Initiatives
  • Figure 3.9: Number of FTEs Dedicated to Patient-Centric Initiatives, by Company
  • Figure 3.10: Duration of Patient-Centric Planning and Support, by Company
  • Figure 3.11: Cost of Supporting Patient-Centric Initiative Planning and Support, by Company

Patient-Centric Initiative Profiles

  • Figure 3.12: Company 5: Initiative Background
  • Figure 3.13: Company 5: Initiative Details
  • Figure 3.14: Company 5: Initiative Resources
  • Figure 3.15: Company 5: Initiative Success
  • Figure 3.16: Company 18: Initiative Background
  • Figure 3.17: Company 18: Initiative Details
  • Figure 3.18: Company 18: Initiative Resources
  • Figure 3.19: Company 18: Initiative Success
  • Figure 3.20: Company 19: Initiative Background
  • Figure 3.21: Company 19: Initiative Details
  • Figure 3.22: Company 19: Initiative Resources
  • Figure 3.23: Company 19: Initiative Success
  • Figure 3.24: Company 28: Initiative Background
  • Figure 3.25: Company 28: Initiative Details
  • Figure 3.26: Company 28: Initiative Resources
  • Figure 3.27: Company 28: Initiative Success
  • Figure 3.28: Company 32: Initiative Background
  • Figure 3.29: Company 32: Initiative Details
  • Figure 3.30: Company 32: Initiative Resources
  • Figure 3.31: Company 32: Initiative Success
  • Figure 3.32: Company 45: Initiative Background
  • Figure 3.33: Company 45: Initiative Details
  • Figure 3.34: Company 45: Initiative Resources
  • Figure 3.35: Company 45: Initiative Success
  • Figure 3.36: Company 52: Initiative Background
  • Figure 3.37: Company 52: Initiative Details
  • Figure 3.38: Company 52: Initiative Resources
  • Figure 3.39: Company 52: Initiative Success
  • Figure 3.40: Company 60: Initiative Background
  • Figure 3.41: Company 60: Initiative Details
  • Figure 3.42: Company 60: Initiative Resources
  • Figure 3.43: Company 60: Initiative Success
  • Figure 3.44: Company 63: Initiative Background
  • Figure 3.45: Company 63: Initiative Details
  • Figure 3.46: Company 63: Initiative Resources
  • Figure 3.47: Company 63: Initiative Success
Back to Top