Cover Image
Market Research Report

Global Market Access Strategies

Published by Cutting Edge Information Product code 374704
Published Content info 156 Pages
Delivery time: 1-2 business days
Price
Back to Top
Global Market Access Strategies
Published: September 30, 2016 Content info: 156 Pages
Description

Market access and managed markets teams are a cornerstone of pharmaceutical companies' payer relationship management. The core mission of communicating an effective value story to payers now expands to include health economics work and launch sequencing. According to several interviewed executives, a primary challenge for market access teams is finding the time to coordinate and manage a growing portfolio of responsibilities.

Today, the key to successfully navigating reimbursement systems worldwide is early planning. Market access teams need to work closely with other functions - especially clinical teams - well before product launch to maximize the drug data available to payers. After launch, forward-thinking teams maintain ongoing engagement with payers and have a keen awareness of competitor activities.

Use of This Report

This report will guide market access teams on how to structure and resource core and ancillary operations successfully. The centerpiece of most market access teams' responsibilities is payer relationship management. Data in this report show how to support those relationships with valuable health economics and pricing information. Additionally, this report examines processes for setting and adjusting market access strategies for pharmaceutical products.

MARKET ACCESS STRATEGIES: FIVE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUCCESS

Cutting Edge Information's analysts synthesized the following five key findings and recommendations from the full breadth and depth of this project's research. These principles are signposts to help you improve your company's market access strategy.

Nurture Relationships with Payers Before, During and After Launch to Ensure and Retain Market Access

An essential ingredient of surveyed teams' pricing, reimbursement and global launch sequencing successes is building new payer relationships and expanding existing ones. Depending on the countries they target, dedicated teams may need to collaborate with a mixture of national-, regional- and local-level payer groups to secure access for their products. True to form, surveyed teams report making payer relationship activities a top priority among the many other market access responsibilities they undertake.

As shown, payer relationship management accounts for an average of 26% of surveyed companies' total market access budget (Figure E.1). Moreover, of the total FTEs assigned to market access tasks, an average of 33% support payer relationships.

Surveyed companies interact with payer groups before, during and after product launch. Ideally, companies may prefer to engage payers as early as 10 months ahead of scheduled launch. Realistically, however, this timeline falls closer to five months prior to products' market entries.

Frequent interactions with payers help dedicated teams to understand payer perspectives - beneficial both during and after company products reach the marketplace. Ahead of launch, ample communications with payer groups help companies increase their odds of ensuring product access in target markets. This preparation enables dedicated teams to:

  • Gain familiarity with how best to operate in challenging markets as well as any new market-specific regulations that may exist.
  • Validate planned pricing strategy via dedicated studies that capture current product benchmarks and identify payer acceptance levels at various proposed prices.

Teams do not stop interacting with payers after products launch. Instead, they continue to nurture these important relationships, serving as an informational resource to help circumvent potential product challenges. For example, they may meet with payer groups to discuss adverse events. They may present payers with new product data to discuss how they plan to retain access in the wake of any newly launched competitor products.

Figure E.1: Percentage of Budget and FTEs Allocated to Market Access Administration and Payer Relationships

image1

Dedicating Unique Market Access Strategies to Each Product Brings Key Advantages

As market access teams push harder for early involvement in product development, they are also increasingly developing individualized strategies for each product in their portfolio. Figure E.2 shows that 87% of surveyed teams develop a specific market access strategy for each product. Just 13% of teams develop a general strategy for multiple products within the same therapeutic area or business unit.

Developing an individual strategy for each product comes with several advantages. One key benefit is that teams are able to plan what types of clinical data payers will likely request when pursuing reimbursement. Another advantage is that groups can make minor adjustments to launch sequences that can yield significant increases in revenue.

As discussed in Chapter 5, market access teams tend to lead the way in developing individualized strategies for each product. Medical affairs, marketing and brand teams also play a role in strategy development among most surveyed companies. Additionally, the role of regulatory groups should not be discounted, especially in early strategic discussions. Regulatory teams' input is key for aligning licensing cascades in relation to launch sequencing decisions.

Figure E.2: Approach to Developing Market Access Strategy: All Teams

image2

Look to Health Economics Experts to Overcome the Lack of HEOR Knowledge Within Internal Clients

Market access groups face a number of challenges in their daily operations. These challenges range from effectively communicating with payers to securing the necessary resources to drive effective operations. The largest challenge, according to surveyed market access groups, is overcoming a lack of understanding about health economics and outcomes research (HEOR) among their internal clients and colleagues.

As shown in Figure E.3, the majority of surveyed groups find it difficult to overcome the lack of HEOR knowledge among internal clients. In fact, only 8% of surveyed teams report that it is not at all challenging. Another 15% each report that overcoming this lack of knowledge is slightly or moderately challenging. However, the largest percentages - 31% each - find this obstacle challenging to very challenging.

Figure E.3: Teams' Rating for Market Access Challenge: Overcoming Lack of HEOR Knowledge by Internal Groups

image3

To bridge this knowledge gap, one surveyed firm, Company A, has implemented internal education. One of its internal market access experts runs regular training courses to educate other functions on the importance of health economics as well as the market access role within specific activities. Internal clients find these training programs useful. An interviewed Company A executive notes that the key is to conduct this training on a peer-to-peer level. "When I think about the training courses run by our access people, there's a mutual respect between the different functions - and our market access people really want those functions to understand what we do," he said.

Start Core Market Access Activities Around 18 Months Before Product Launch

When it comes to a successful product launch, the importance of early planning and strategy for market access cannot be overstated. This report's data show that all surveyed teams would ideally start activities such as market access strategy, health economics and comparative effectiveness research at least 18 months before product launch (see Figure E.4). This ideal time frame is typically three to five months before these activities actually start.

Figure E.4: Current and Ideal Starts of Market Access Activities Relative to Launch: All Teams

image4

The biggest difference between current and ideal start times among surveyed companies is found in launch sequencing. According to survey data, launch sequencing is not ideally among the first three activities for companies to start early. But the gap between current and ideal timing shows that market access groups surveyed feel that launch sequencing should be given higher priority. Other large gaps between current and ideal timing include product pricing and payer relationship management.

Be Aware of the Growth and Importance of Population Health Management

Population health management is not yet a major strategic concern for many pharmaceutical organizations. But it may be the radar for most teams moving forward. Population health management combines various outcomes- and value-based practices that attempt to generate value for each key stakeholder in the healthcare process: patients, payers, physicians and pharmaceutical manufacturers.

Figure E.5 shows how companies of different sizes currently approach population health management.

  • All surveyed Top 10 companies have some engagement with population health management. Among those Top 10 companies, 67% have teams dedicated to population health management while the remainder coordinate population health through ad hoc groups.
  • No surveyed Top 50 companies have dedicated population health management functions, but a third have ad hoc involvement.
  • No surveyed small companies have any involvement.

These data suggest that population health management activities may occur mostly at large companies for now. But in the future population health management involvement will likely increase among smaller companies.

Figure E.5: Management of Population Health Management Activities, by Company Size

image5

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 analysts began developing the quantitative survey tool used in this study by working closely with pharmaceutical and medical device industry executives. Once the research team completed the survey design, analysts recruited study participants from pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies and medical device firms worldwide to collect data on market access teams, activities and trends. The research team collected all survey data through primary research with front-line market access experts. Altogether, Cutting Edge Information collected and analyzed data sets from 30 respondents from companies of all sizes and geographic locations. Study participants included vice presidents and directors of global and regional market access departments, as well as industry experts working for high-level consultancies.

Once participants submitted a survey, analysts used qualitative interviews to uncover more detailed information. Cutting Edge Information used telephone interviews with pharmaceutical and medical device executives to understand challenges and solutions to meeting the demands for reimbursement. Not all survey participants agreed to an interview for this study. By interviewing a selection of survey respondents, Cutting Edge Information gained a deeper understanding of market access. In return for these parties' contributions, they received the study results. Analysts used additional secondary research derived from 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 Size

This study divides surveyed companies into three categories to differentiate by size and type. Whereas in other contexts these terms might be used differently, for the purposes of CEI's data analysis, the size breakdown is as follows:

  • Top 10 Companies: Pharmaceutical companies ranked in the top 10 according to Pharmaceutical Executive. Generally, these companies achieve annual revenues above $20 billion.
  • Top 50 Companies: Pharmaceutical companies ranked between 11 and 50 according to Pharmaceutical Executive. Generally, these companies achieve annual revenues between $2 billion and $20 billion.
  • Small Companies: Pharmaceutical and biotech companies not ranked by Pharmaceutical Executive.

Alongside the company size breakdown, market access teams are also characterized by one of four regional market types:

  • Global: Teams that are responsible for market access activities in multiple countries worldwide.
  • United States (US) : Teams whose responsibilities are limited to the company's market access activities in the United States.
  • EU/Canada (EU) : Teams whose responsibilities are limited to the company's market access activities in Europe or Canada. Europe and Canada are grouped together because of their similar reimbursement systems.
  • Emerging Markets (EM) : Teams whose responsibilities are limited to the company's market access activities in markets other than the US, Canada and Europe.
Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

Market Access Team Structure and Staffing

  • Responsibility for Market Access Activities
  • Appropriate Sizing and Structuring of Market Access Teams

Calibrate Spending and Outsourcing to Meet Market Needs

  • Overall Market Access Spending on the Rise
  • Market Access Subfunction Spending Highlights Importance of HEOR
  • Market Access Outsourcing Fills Key Gaps in Internal Capabilities

Build Payer Relationships Early to Facilitate Customized Pricing and Launch Sequencing Strategies

  • Forge Strong Payer Relationships by Incorporating Third-Party Perspectives
  • Constantly Communicate with Third-Party Stakeholders to Develop and Uphold Pricing Strategies
  • Plan Early to Develop Customized Launch Sequences
  • Broaden Patient-Centric Strategies with a Dedicated Population Health Management Team

Combining Market Access Expertise with Health Economics, Patient-Reported Outcomes and Regulatory Affairs

  • Leveraging Market Access Teams to Support Health Economics Efforts
  • Harnessing Market Access Expertise to Drive Patient-Reported Outcomes Activities
  • Looking to Medical Science Liaisons and Regulatory Affairs Teams to Aid Market Access

Developing Market Access Team Strategies and Demonstrating Success

Executive Summary

  • Figure E.1: Percentage of Budget and FTEs Allocated to Market Access Administration and Payer Relationships
  • Figure E.2: Approach to Developing Market Access Strategy: All Teams
  • Figure E.3: Teams' Rating for Market Access Challenge: Overcoming Lack of HEOR Knowledge by Internal Groups
  • Figure E.4: Current and Ideal Starts of Market Access Activities Relative to Launch: All Teams
  • Figure E.5: Management of Population Health Management Activities, by Company Size

Market Access Team Structure and Staffing

  • Figure 1.1: Market Access Team Involvement, by Subfunction: All Teams
  • Figure 1.2: Market Access Team Involvement, by Subfunction and Company Type
  • Figure 1.3: Market Access Team Involvement, by Subfunction and Region
  • Figure 1.4: Current Start of Market Access Subfunctions Relative to Launch: Top 10 Company Teams
  • Figure 1.5: Ideal Start of Market Access Activities Subfunctions to Launch: Top 10 Company Teams
  • Figure 1.6: Current Start of Market Access Subfunctions Relative to Launch: Top 50 Company Teams
  • Figure 1.7: Ideal Start of Market Access Activities Subfunctions to Launch: Top 50 Company Teams
  • Figure 1.8: Current Start of Market Access Subfunctions Relative to Launch: Small Company Teams
  • Figure 1.9: Ideal Start of Market Access Subfunctions Relative to Launch: Small Company Teams
  • Figure 1.10: Functional Responsibility for Market Access Activities: All Teams

Responsibility for Market Access Activities

  • Figure 1.11: Final Oversight of Market Access Activities: All Teams
  • Figure 1.12: Level of Executive Leading Market Access Group: All Teams
  • Figure 1.13: Level of Executive Leading Market Access Group, by Company Type
  • Figure 1.14: Level of Executive Leading Market Access Group, by Region
  • Figure 1.15: Level of Executive with Final Oversight over Market Access Function: All Teams
  • Figure 1.16: Level of Executive with Final Oversight over Market Access Function, by Company Type
  • Figure 1.17: Level of Executive with Final Oversight over Market Access Function, by Region

Appropriate Sizing and Structuring of Market Access Teams

  • Figure 1.18: Prototypical Market Access Team Structure and FTE Allocation: Top 10 Company Teams
  • Figure 1.19: Prototypical Market Access Team Structure and FTE Allocation: Top 50 Company Teams
  • Figure 1.20: Prototypical Market Access Team Structure and FTE Allocation: Small Company Teams
  • Figure 1.21: Prototypical Market Access Team Structure and FTE Allocation: US Teams
  • Figure 1.22: Prototypical Market Access Team Structure and FTE Allocation: EU/Canada Teams
  • Figure 1.23: Prototypical Market Access Team Structure and FTE Allocation: Emerging Markets Teams
  • Figure 1.24: Average Total Number of Market Access FTEs, by Company Type
  • Figure 1.25: Average Total Number of Market Access FTEs, by Region
  • Figure 1.26: Average Number of FTEs for Market Access Subfunctions: Top 10 Company Teams
  • Figure 1.27: Average Number of FTEs for Market Access Subfunctions: Top 50 Company Teams
  • Figure 1.28: Average Number of FTEs for Market Access Subfunctions: Small Company Teams
  • Figure 1.29: Average Number of FTEs for Market Access Subfunctions: US Teams
  • Figure 1.30: Average Number of FTEs for Market Access Subfunctions: EU/Canada Teams
  • Figure 1.31: Average Number of FTEs for Market Access Subfunctions: Emerging Markets Teams

Calibrate Spending and Outsourcing to Meet Market Needs

Overall Market Access Spending on the Rise

  • Figure 2.1: Average Annual Market Access Spending, by Company Type
  • Figure 2.2: Average Annual Market Access Spending, by Team Region
  • Figure 2.3: Annual Market Access Spending, by Company: Top 10 Company Teams
  • Figure 2.4: Annual Market Access Spending, by Company: Top 50 Company Teams
  • Figure 2.5: Annual Market Access Spending, by Company: Small Company Teams
  • Figure 2.6: Percentage of Annual Spending Dedicated to Overhead/Salaries, by Company
  • Figure 2.7: Annual Spending Dedicated to Overhead/Salaries, by Company
  • Figure 2.8: Budget and FTE Allocation for Market Access Subfunctions

Market Access Subfunction Spending Highlights Importance of HEOR

  • Figure 2.9: Market Access Budget Allocation, by Company Type
  • Figure 2.10: Average Budget Allocations for Market Access Subfunctions: Top 10 Company Teams
  • Figure 2.11: Average Budget Allocations for Market Access Subfunctions: Top 50 Company Teams
  • Figure 2.12: Average Budget Allocations for Market Access Subfunctions: Small Company Teams
  • Figure 2.13: Average Budget Allocations for Market Access Subfunctions, by Team Region
  • Figure 2.14: Average Budget Allocations for Market Access Subfunctions: US Teams
  • Figure 2.15: Average Budget Allocations for Market Access Subfunctions: EU/Canada Teams
  • Figure 2.16: Average Budget Allocations for Market Access Subfunctions: Emerging Markets Teams
  • Figure 2.17: Changes in Budgets for Market Access Subfunctions from 2015 to 2016: Strategy/Administration
  • Figure 2.18: Changes in Budgets for Market Access Subfunctions from 2015 to 2016: Payer Relationships
  • Figure 2.19: Changes in Budgets for Market Access Subfunctions from 2015 to 2016: HEOR
  • Figure 2.20: Changes in Budgets for Market Access Subfunctions from 2015 to 2016: CER
  • Figure 2.21: Changes in Budgets for Market Access Subfunctions from 2015 to 2016: Product Pricing
  • Figure 2.22: Changes in Budgets for Market Access Subfunctions from 2015 to 2016: Patient- Reported Outcomes
  • Figure 2.23: Changes in Budgets for Market Access Subfunctions from 2015 to 2016: Launch Sequencing
  • Figure 2.24: Outsourcing of Market Access Activities, by Subfunction: All Teams

Market Access Outsourcing Fills Key Gaps in Internal Capabilities

  • Figure 2.25: Percentage of Market Access Strategy/Administration Activity and Spending Outsourced, by Company
  • Figure 2.26: Percentage of Product Pricing Activity and Spending Outsourced, by Company
  • Figure 2.27: Percentage of Health Economics Activity and Spending Outsourced, by Company
  • Figure 2.28: Percentage of Comparative Effectiveness Research Activity and Spending Outsourced, by Company
  • Figure 2.29: Percentage of Launch Sequencing Activity and Spending Outsourced, by Company

Build Payer Relationships Early to Facilitate Customized Pricing and Launch Sequencing Strategies

Forge Strong Payer Relationships by Incorporating Third-Party Perspectives

  • Figure 3.1: Percentage of Market Access Groups Involved in Payer Relationships, by Company Size
  • Figure 3.2: Percentage of Market Access Groups Involved in Payer Relationships, by Team Region
  • Figure 3.3: Number of Months Before or After Product Launch for Start of Payer Relationships Activities, by Company Size
  • Figure 3.4: 2015 Budget for Payer Relationship Activities: Top 10 and Top 50 Company Teams
  • Figure 3.5: 2015 Budget for Payer Relationship Activities: Small Company Teams
  • Figure 3.6: Changes in Payer Relationship Budget Between 2015 and 2016
  • Figure 3.7: Percentage of Teams Employing Managed Markets Account Managers, by Account Manager Type
  • Figure 3.8: Percentage of Teams Employing Managed Markets Account Managers, by Account Manager Type and Company Size
  • Figure 3.9: Percentage of Teams Employing Managed Markets Account Managers, by Account Manager Type and Team Region
  • Figure 3.10: Number of National- and State-Level Account Managers: Top 10 and Top 50 Company Teams
  • Figure 3.11: Number of National- and State-Level Account Managers: Small Company Teams
  • Figure 3.12: Number of Government Account Managers: Top 10 and Top 50 Company Teams
  • Figure 3.13: Number of Government Account Managers: Small Company Teams
  • Figure 3.14: Number of Pharmacy Account Managers: All Teams
  • Figure 3.15: Total Annual Cost of National- and State-Level Account Managers: All Teams
  • Figure 3.16: Total Annual Cost of Government Account Managers: All Teams
  • Figure 3.17: Total Annual Cost of Pharmacy Account Managers: All Teams

Constantly Communicate with Third-Party Stakeholders to Develop and Uphold Pricing Strategies

  • Figure 3.18: Percentage of Market Access Groups Involved in Product Pricing, by Company Size
  • Figure 3.19: Percentage of Market Access Groups Involved in Product Pricing, by Team Region
  • Figure 3.20: Number of Months Before or After Launch for Start of Product Pricing Activities, by Company Size
  • Figure 3.21: 2015 Budget for Product Pricing Activities: Top 10 and Top 50 Company Teams
  • Figure 3.22: 2015 Budget for Product Pricing Activities: Small Company Teams
  • Figure 3.23: Changes in Product Pricing Budget Between 2015 and 2016

Plan Early to Develop Customized Launch Sequences

  • Figure 3.24: Percentage of Market Access Groups Involved in Launch Sequencing, by Company Size
  • Figure 3.25: Percentage of Market Access Groups Involved in Launch Sequencing, by Team Region
  • Figure 3.26: Number of Months Before or After Launch for Start of Launch Sequencing Activities, by Company Size
  • Figure 3.27: 2015 Budget for Launch Sequencing Activities: Top 10 and Top 50 Company Teams
  • Figure 3.28: 2015 Budget for Launch Sequencing Activities: Small Company Teams
  • Figure 3.29: Changes in Launch Sequencing Budget Between 2015 and 2016
  • Figure 3.30: Management of Launch Sequencing Activities: All Teams
  • Figure 3.31: Management of Launch Sequencing Responsibilities, by Company Size
  • Figure 3.32: Design of Product Launch Sequences: All Teams
  • Figure 3.33: Design of Product Launch Sequences, by Company Size

Broaden Patient-Centric Strategies with a Dedicated Population Health

  • Management Team
  • Figure 3.34: Management of Population Health Management Activities: All Teams
  • Figure 3.35: Management of Population Health Management Activities, by Company Size
  • Figure 3.36: Group with Oversight of Population Health Management Activities: All Teams

Combining Market Access Expertise with Health Economics, Patient-Reported Outcomes and Regulatory Affairs

Leveraging Market Access Teams to Support Health Economics Efforts

  • Figure 4.1: Role of Managed Markets Account Managers in Developing and Disseminating Health Economics Data: All Teams
  • Figure 4.2: Role of Medical Science Liaisons in Developing and Disseminating Health Economics Data: All Teams
  • Figure 4.3: Role of Health Outcomes Liaisons in Developing and Disseminating Health Economics Data: All Teams
  • Figure 4.4: Role of Health Economists in Developing and Disseminating Health Economics Data: All Teams
  • Figure 4.5: Role of Key Account Managers in Developing and Disseminating Health Economics Data: All Teams
  • Figure 4.6: Number of FTEs Supporting Account Managers in HEOR Work
  • Figure 4.7: Percentage of Market Access Groups Involved in Health Economics, by Company Size
  • Figure 4.8: Percentage of Market Access Groups Involved in Health Economics, by Team Region
  • Figure 4.9: Number of Months Before or After Product Launch for Start of Health Economics Activities, by Company Size
  • Figure 4.10: 2015 Budget for Health Economics Activities: All Teams
  • Figure 4.11: Changes in Health Economics Budget Between 2015 and 2016
  • Figure 4.12: Percentage of HEOR Studies Containing Retrospective or Prospective Elements: All Teams
  • Figure 4.13: Percentage of HEOR Studies Containing Retrospective or Prospective Elements, by Company
  • Figure 4.14: Percentage of HEOR Studies Conducted In-House or Outsourced to Vendor: All Teams
  • Figure 4.15: Percentage of HEOR Studies Conducted In-House or Outsourced to Vendor, by Company
  • Figure 4.16: Percentage of Market Access Groups Involved in Comparative Effectiveness Research, by Company Size
  • Figure 4.17: Percentage of Market Access Groups Involved in Comparative Effectiveness Research, by Team Region
  • Figure 4.18: Number of Months Before or After Product Launch for Start of Comparative Effectiveness Activities, by Company Size
  • Figure 4.19: 2015 Budget for Comparative Effectiveness Research Activities: All Teams
  • Figure 4.20: Changes in Comparative Effectiveness Budget Between 2015 and 2016

Harnessing Market Access Expertise to Drive Patient-Reported Outcomes Activities

  • Figure 4.21: Percentage of Market Access Groups Involved in Patient-Reported Outcomes, by Company Size
  • Figure 4.22: Percentage of Market Access Groups Involved in Patient-Reported Outcomes, by Team Region
  • Figure 4.23: Number of Months Before or After Product Launch for Start of Patient-Reported Outcomes Activities, by Company Size
  • Figure 4.24: 2015 Budget for Patient-Reported Outcomes Activities: All Teams

Looking to Medical Science Liaisons and Regulatory Affairs Teams to Aid Market Access

  • Figure 4.25: MSL Role in Supporting Market Access Activities: All Teams
  • Figure 4.26: MSL Role in Supporting Market Access Activities, by Company Size
  • Figure 4.27: Regulatory Affairs Role in Supporting Market Access Activities: All Teams
  • Figure 4.28: Regulatory Affairs Role in Supporting Market Access Activities, by Company Size

Developing Market Access Team Strategies and Demonstrating Success

  • Figure 5.1: Approach to Developing Market Access Strategy: All Teams
  • Figure 5.2: Approach to Developing Market Access Strategy, by Company Type
  • Figure 5.3: Functional Involvement in Developing Market Access Strategy: All Teams
  • Figure 5.4: Functional Involvement in Developing Market Access Strategy, by Company Type
  • Figure 5.5: Functional Involvement in Developing Market Access Strategy, by Team Region
  • Figure 5.6: Market Changes Prompting Market Access Strategy Reassessment
  • Figure 5.7: Market Changes Prompting Market Access Strategy Reassessment, by Company Type
  • Figure 5.8: Market Changes Prompting Market Access Strategy Reassessment, by Team Region
  • Figure 5.9: Percentage of Teams Evaluating Market Access Success, by Metric: All Teams
  • Figure 5.10: Challenges Facing Marketing Access Teams: All Teams
  • Figure 5.11: Trends Facing Marketing Access Teams: All Teams
Back to Top