These skin results are derived from a global review of pharma's corporate reputation (conducted November 2016 to early-February 2017).
The skin results form the opinions of 86 patient groups specialising in:
- Bechet's syndrome
The 86 patient groups came from 35 countries.
17 pharma companies are included in this 2016 skin analysis:
- Boehringer Ingelheim
- Eli Lilly
- LEO Pharma
- Merck & Co
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 show the corporate reputation of individual pharma companies:
- Patient centricity.
- Information for patients.
- Patient safety.
- Usefulness of products.
- Patient-group relationships (new for 2016).
[On patient information] —"We get information about the product we use only if we ask. Doctors are more helpful." — Regional psoriasis patient group, New Zealand
[On the healthcare sectors’ corporate reputation] —“Biologics are not affordable by 99.5% of patients, and are not covered by insurance in India. Phototherapy is not easily accessible to rural patients (only a small number of urban patients can access it).” — Psoriasis People’s Forum, Hyderabad, India
[On patient centricity] —“Listen carefully to our inquiries, and try to collaborate as much as possible, to reach the famous ‘quality of life’ so often mentioned, yet so rarely put into practice. With some companies, you succeed. With others, less so.”— Associazione per la Difesa degli Psoriasici (A.DI.PSO.), Italy
- In 2016, skin-conditions patient groups show higher regard for the pharma industry as a whole than patient groups from most other therapy areas. 54% of skin-conditions patient groups thought that the pharma industry had an "Excellent" or "Good" corporate reputation in 2016 (just 38% of patient groups across all therapy areas thought the same).
- Skin-conditions patient groups ranked the biotech industry 1st among 8 healthcare-industry sectors for having an "Excellent" or "Good" corporate reputation in 2016. They ranked multinational pharma 2nd.
- HOWEVER, skin-conditions patient groups were also, on the whole, more negative in 2016 about a number of the pharma industry's activities than patient groups from other therapy areas.
- Only 59% of skin-conditions patient groups stated that pharma was "Excellent" or "Good" at being innovative (a score well below that of the highest, from haemophilia patient groups, of 74%).
- Just 28% of skin-conditions patient groups stated that pharma was "Excellent" or "Good" at having integrity (again, the figure among among haemophilia patient groups was 55%).
THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PHARMA COMPANIES AND PATIENT GROUPS
- The company with which skin-conditions patient groups were most familiar was Pfizer (79% of respondent skin- conditions patient groups were familiar with Pfizer).
INDIVIDUAL COMPANY FINDINGS
- AbbVie ranked overall 1st in 2016 for corporate reputation among the 17 pharma companies, when judged by patient groups with an interest in skin conditions, and familiar with the company.
- AbbVie also ranked 1st for all seven indicators of corporate reputation.
- LEO Pharma ranked 5th out of 17 companies—higner than its equivalent performance among all patient groups from different therapy areas familiar with LEO Pharma.
- Six companies—Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Sanofi, and Teva—were all positioned more highly for corporate reputation in 2016 by their skin-conditions patient-group partners than by the skin-conditions patient groups which merely claimed familiarity with the companies.
Skin-conditions patient-group relationships with 17 pharma companies.
Industry-wide findings from skin-conditions patient groups.
Skin-conditions patient groups on improving corporate reputation.
Rankings of the 17 pharma companies among skin-conditions patient groups familiar with them.
Positioning of the 17 pharma companies among partner skin-conditions patient groups.
Profiles of the 17 pharma companies.
Comments from respondent skin-conditions patient groups.
Profile of the 86 respondent skin-conditions patient groups.
Skin-conditions patient groups claiming familiarity, or which worked, with the company, 2016.
Industry-wide performance among skin-conditions patient groups for corporate reputation, 2016:
- Compared with other healthcare sectors.
- Over time.
- For various activities.
- Recommendations on how industry can improve.
Rankings among skin-conditions patient groups for the indicators of corporate reputation among patient groups familiar with the company, and which work/partner with the company, 2016.
The company's average scores for the 7 indicators of corporate reputation, 2016 versus 2015.
The company’s performance for the 7 indicators of corporate reputation, 2016.
The company’s rankings among patient groups for the indicators of corporate reputation, 2016: skin-conditions versus therapy wide; familiar with versus 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, 2016.