During the months of June-August 2017, PatientView conducted its sixth annual survey of patient groups worldwide to gauge their views on the state of the medical device industry in 2016-2017. The survey also determined which of 39 medical device companies performed best for various indicators of corporate reputation.
This study of the corporate reputation of the medical-device industry has been running for six years in a row (the first year’s study looked at the industry in 2011, and was published in 2012). The study’s historic, year-on-year results allow all stakeholders interested in the medical-device industry to gain both a current, and now a long-term, overview of developments in the subject area. Particularly importantly, the annual study illustrates what patient groups see as valuable to patients—today, and over the whole six-year time period. The study’s results are not just highly appreciated by patient groups—the industry has stated on numerous occasions that it regards the study as valuable. ‘The Corporate Reputation of the Medical-Device Industry’ permits companies to better understand the views of patient groups, and to learn what patient representatives regard as genuinely patient-centric policies.
The advent of wearables and the increasing uptake of health apps are both trends that make patients ever more aware of medical devices (and the companies which manufacture them). This survey of 513 patient groups worldwide, conducted June-August 2017, provides feedback (from the perspective of these patient groups) on the corporate reputation of the medical-device industry, as well as on the performance of 39 different medical-device companies at seven key indicators of corporate reputation (from a patient perspective).
FINDINGS: THE CORPORATE REPUTATION OF THE MEDICAL DEVICE INDUSTRY—WHAT PATIENT GROUPS SAY IN 2017
A respectable 61% of the 513 patient groups replying to the 2017 survey thought that the medical-device industry had an 'Excellent' or 'Good' corporate reputation. However, results do vary significantly among patient groups—depending on their country/region of location. For instance, patient groups from Eastern Europe, Latin America, and the US exhibit some startling differences in attitude to the medical-device industry, when compared with the pharmaceutical industry.
Patient groups in Eastern Europe and Latin America view pharma far more favourably for corporate reputation in 2017 than they do the medical-device industry. Comments received from patient groups responding to the 2017 medical-device corporate-reputation survey (and from those responding to the 2016-2017 pharmaceutical-industry corporate-reputation survey) make clear that the problems of access to medical devices (particularly hospital devices) are far more severe in Eastern Europe and Latin America than they are for the supply of medicines in the two regions.
Patient groups in the USA, by contrast, view pharma far more negatively for corporate reputation in 2017 than they do the medical-device industry. The pharmaceutical industry's pricing policies received attention in the USA following criticisms by President Trump (especially those made during his late-2016 election campaign). By contrast, the medical-device industry has remained relatively immune from such criticisms—and, in fact, stands to benefit from new tax breaks under the Trump presidency.
How medical-devices companies ranked for the seven indicators of corporate reputation, 2017
The top of the medical-device league table for corporate reputation in 2017—from a patient perspective—is dominated by companies operating within either of one or two broad sectors: continence/ostomy, and hearing loss. Products made by companies in the two sectors are physically handled by patients, who then become well acquainted with their devices, and appreciative of them (and the manufacturer). Thus:
- Hollister ranked overall 1st in 2017 for corporate reputation among the 39 medical-device companies, and 1st for four of the seven indicators of corporate reputation: patient centricity; the provision of high-quality patient information; the provision of high-quality products; and patient-group relationships.
- ConvaTec ranked 1st in 2017 among the 39 medical-device companies for two of the seven indicators of corporate reputation: patient safety; and integrity.
- MED-EL ranked 1st for the remaining indicator, transparency.
On the other hand, companies manufacturing devices in two other sectors that also involve much hands-on product interaction by patients—visual impairment, and blood-pressure monitoring—do not perform as well for corporate reputation. Such a finding suggests (rather surprisingly) that companies trading within the latter two sectors consider patient groups less important to them.
Sitting at the bottom of the corporate-reputation league table are companies that manufacture medical imaging—products relatively unknown to most patients (and even to most patient groups).
FINDINGS: MEDICAL-DEVICE COMPANY SECTOR ANALYSIS
Which companies ranked 1st among their peers in four different medical-device sectors?
To give companies (and the respondent patient groups reading the report) an idea of company performance at corporate reputation among like-with-like peers, PatientView has provided, for the first time, an indication of how well medical-device companies do at corporate reputation when compared with the other companies in their specialist sector.
Average scores across the seven indicators of corporate reputation 2017 [figure in brackets is the number of patient groups familiar with the company—upon which the percentages are based]
FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THIS REPORT
What is corporate reputation? In this survey, corporate reputation is defined for patient groups. "Are companies meeting the expectations of the relevant patient groups?"
INDUSTRY-WIDE ANALYSES, 2017
- Patient-groups' perceptions of the medical-device industry (compared with other healthcare industries).
- The medical-device industry's corporate reputation over time (2012-2017).
- Whether the medical-device industry's corporate reputation has improved or declined (2017 perceptions).
- How the medical-device industry has performed at various activities of importance to patients.
- What medical-device companies can do to improve corporate reputation.
COMPANY ANALYSES, 2017
- Corporate brand awareness.
- Levels of patient-group partnerships.
- Company rankings at the seven indicators of corporate reputation.
- What the company's patient-group partners think of the company for the 7 indicators of corporate reputation.
- What patient groups in different countries/regions, and in different therapy areas, think of the company's corporate reputation.
- A special focus on one element of the company's specialty, compared with that of peer companies in the same specialty [new for the 2017 report].
The seven indicators of corporate reputation from a patient perspective: 1. Patient centricity; 2. The provision of high-quality patient information; 3. Patient safety; 4. The provision of high-quality products; 5. Transparency; 6. Integrity; and 7. The quality of relationships with patient groups.
In addition, the report features ...
Comments made by 171 patient groups from around the world on how medical-device companies can improve their corporate reputation.
Feedback, in their own words, from two medical-device companies—Coloplast and ConvaTec—on their patient-centric activities in 2017.
- 3M Healthcare
- Abbott Laboratories
- Advanced Bionics
- B. Braun Melsungen AG
- Bausch + Lomb
- Baxter International
- Boston Scientific
- Cochlear Americas
- Coloplast A/S
- Dickinson and Company
- Fresenius Medical Care
- GE Healthcare
- Hartmann Group
- Johnson & Johnson
- Mölnlycke Health Care
- Novo Nordisk A/S
- Olympus Medical Business
- Ortho Clinical Diagnostics
- Philips Healthcare
- Roche Diagnostics
- Siemens Healthineers
- Smith & Nephew
- St. Jude Medical
- Toshiba Medical Systems Corporation