The haemophilia therapy-area results are derived from a global review (conducted November 2016 to early-February 2017) of 46 patient groups specialising in haemophilia, based in 36 countries.
8 pharma companies are included in this 2016 haemophilia therapy-area analysis:
- Novo Nordisk
- Shire (the latter including Baxalta)
How pharma is assessed for corporate reputation
- How the pharma industry’s corporate reputation compares with that of other healthcare industries.
- How the pharma industry’s corporate reputation has changed over the past five years.
- How good or bad the pharma industry is at various activities of relevance to patients and patient groups.
7 indicators for the corporate reputation of individual pharma companies:
- Information for patients.
- Patient safety.
- Usefulness of products.
- Patient-group relationships.
“Do not charge exorbitant prices for drugs that were developed 20 years ago.”
National haemophilia patient group, North America
“Corporate reputation decreases when these companies do not gain the national tender for the supply of anti-haemophiliac factors. Yet the corporate reputation should still be high, even if the drug company does not win the national tender of supply.”
Iraqi Hemophilia Society
“Soutenir la recherche locale afin d’évaluer et d’adapter les vrais besoins de nos malades et des traitements adaptés.” [“Support local research to evaluate and adapt the real needs of our patients, and adapt treatments.”]
L’Association Malienne de Lutte contre l’Hémophilie et autres Coagulopathies (AMALHEC), Mali
- Haemophilia patient groups show higher regard for pharma than patient groups from other therapy areas. 52% of haemophilia patient groups thought that the pharma industry had an "Excellent" or "Good" corporate reputation in 2016, compared with just 37.9% of patient groups across all therapy areas.
- Haemophilia patient groups ranked biotech 1st among 8 healthcare-industry sectors for having a "Excellent" or "Good" corporate reputation in 2016.
- Haemophilia patient groups ranked pharma 2nd (out of 8) for having a "Excellent" or "Good" corporate reputation in 2016, compared with a ranking of 5th (out of 8) given to it by patient groups from other therapy areas in 2016.
- Haemophilia patient groups were also more positive about many of the pharma industry's activities (including its key activity, innovation), when compared with patient groups from other therapy areas.
THE PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN PHARMA COMPANIES AND PATIENT GROUPS
- 46 haemophilia patient groups participated in the 2016 study. They came from Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, and Latin America. The majority of the haemophilia patient groups worked with at least one of the eight pharma companies (and many worked with several). As the chart above shows, one haemophilia patient group worked with as many as 12 pharma companies. Half of the 46 haemophilia patient groups worked with four-to-seven pharma companies.
- The company with which haemophilia patient groups were most familiar was Novo Nordisk (91% of respondent haemophilia patient groups were familiar with the company).
INDIVIDUAL COMPANY FINDINGS
- Novo Nordisk ranked overall 1st in 2016 for corporate reputation among the 8 pharma companies, when judged by haemophilia patient groups.
- Novo Nordisk also ranked 1st for six of the seven indicators of corporate reputation. The exception was at patient centricity, for which Shire (including Baxalta) ranked first.
Haemophilia patient groups on how pharma can improve its patient relations [summary].
Haemophilia patient-group relationships with pharma.
Industry-wide findings from haemophilia patient groups.
Haemophilia patient groups on improving corporate reputation.
Rankings of the 8 pharma companies among haemophilia patient groups familiar with them.
Positioning of the 8 pharma companies among partner haemophilia patient groups.
Individual profiles of the 8 companies.
I. Comments from respondent haemophilia patient groups.
II. Profile of the 46 respondent haemophilia patient groups.
Haemophilia patient groups claiming familiarity, or which worked, with the company, 2016.
The company’s average score for the seven indicators of corporate reputation.
The company’s overall ranking for corporate reputation.
The company’s best indicators of corporate reputation.
The company’s rankings among patient groups for the indicators of corporate reputation, 2016: haemophilia v. therapy wide; familiar with v. worked with.
Percentage of the patient groups that worked with the company—but which also worked with other companies, 2016.
How the company did at corporate reputation in different countries/regions, compared with its therapy-wide average.