The Corporate Reputation of Pharma Industry - The Patient Perspective in 2017 - Global Edition

  • ID: 4592761
  • Report
  • Region: Global
  • 172 pages
  • PatientView
1 of 6
43% of Respondent Patient Groups Thought that the Pharma Industry had an "Excellent" or "Good" Corporate Reputation in 2017

FEATURED COMPANIES

  • AbbVie
  • Bayer
  • CSL Behring
  • Grifols
  • Merck & Co
  • Pierre Fabre Laboratories
  • MORE

The 'Corporate Reputation of Pharma in 2017' report is based on the findings of a PatientView November 2017-February 2018 survey exploring the views of 1,330 patient groups worldwide. The report provides feedback (from the perspective of these patient groups) on the corporate reputation of the pharma industry during 2017, as well as on the performance of 46 pharma companies at 12 key indicators that influence corporate reputation.

The Corporate-Reputation survey is now in its 7th edition - thus, 7 years of historical data are available. In addition, we incorporated several important new indicators of corporate reputation into the 2017 survey - to reflect the changing, and more demanding, relationships that now exist between patient groups and pharma companies. 

ABOUT THIS 2017 REPORT AND SURVEY

Results drawn from survey conducted: November 2017-February 2018.

Survey conducted in 18 languages: Danish - Dutch - English - Finnish - French - German - Greek - Hungarian - Italian - Japanese - Korean - Portuguese - Polish - Russian - Spanish - Swedish - Traditional Chinese - Turkish.

Profile of the respondent patient groups:

  • 1,330 respondent patient groups.
  • 95 countries.
  • 73 specialties.
  • 60% national.
  • 10% international.
  • Patient-group partnerships with industry: 857 patient groups (64%) worked/partnered with at least one pharma company.
  • Industry-wide analyses: the pharma industry as a whole assessed at a wide range of activities important to patients and patient groups; its performance compared with that of other healthcare sectors.
  • Company analyses: 46 pharma companies analysed for performance at 12 indicators of corporate reputation.
  • Nine leading pharma companies - AbbVie, Eisai, Janssen (Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson), Lundbeck, Merck & Co, Merck KGaA, Novartis, Pfizer, and ViiV Healthcare - tell their own story about their patient-centric strategies, and about their activities in the field of patient-group relations, during 2017 (and their plans for 2018).
READ MORE
Note: Product cover images may vary from those shown
2 of 6

FEATURED COMPANIES

  • AbbVie
  • Bayer
  • CSL Behring
  • Grifols
  • Merck & Co
  • Pierre Fabre Laboratories
  • MORE

 Executive Summary
 Methodology
 Patient-Group Relationships With Pharma, 2017
 Industry-Wide Findings, 2017
 Rankings Of The 46 Pharma Companies, 2017 V. 2016 Among Patient Groups Familiar With The Companies
  Positioning Of The 46 Pharma Companies, 2017 V. 2016 Among Patient Groups That Work/Partner With The Companies
  Profiles Of The 46 Companies, 2017

Appendices
I. What 9 Pharmaceutical Companies Say About Their Patient-Oriented Activities, 2017-2018
Ii. Profiles Of Respondent Patient Groups, 2017

Tables and Charts

The Pharma Industry’S Corporate Reputation, 2011-2017 (According To Patient Groups)
Pharma-Industry Reputation At Being Innovative, 2011-2017 (According To Patient Groups)
Companies Showing The Biggest Improvement In Overall Rankings For Corporate
Reputation, 2017 V. 2016 (According To Patient Groups Familiar With The Company)
Companies Showing The Biggest Improvement In Overall Positionings For Corporate
Reputation, 2017 V. 2016 (According To Patient Groups That Work/Partner With The Company)
Company Net Promoter Score, 2017—Compared With Company Position In The League Table(According To Patient Groups That Work With/Partner With The Company)
Company Average Net Promoter Score, 2017—Plotted Against Company Position In The Patient-Group-Partner League Table
Percentage Of Patient Groups Working With Each Company, 2017—As A Proportion Of Patient Groups Familiar With The Company
The 12 Indicators Of Corporate Reputation Used In The 2017 Patient-Group Survey
Percentage Of Patient Groups Stating That “None” Of The 46 Companies Were “Best” For Each Indicator (Indicator By Indicator)
Levels Of Familiarity Of Patient Groups With 46 Companies, 2017 (And Levels Of Patientgroup Partnerships With The Pharma Companies)
Levels Of Familiarity Of Patient Groups With 46 Companies, 2017—Ranked High To Low
Pharma Companies And Levels Of Patient-Group Partnerships, 2017—Ranked High To Low
Types Of Relationships That Patient Groups Have With Pharmaceutical Companies, 2017
The Corporate Reputation Of The Pharmaceutical Industry, 2017 V. 2016—Compared With Eight Other Healthcare Sectors
The Corporate Reputation Of The Pharmaceutical Industry, 2011-2017
Perceptions Of The Efficacy Of The Pharmaceutical Industry At Various Activities Of Importance To Patient Groups, 2017 [Chart And Table]
Perceptions Of The Efficacy Of The Pharmaceutical Industries At Various Activities
Important To Patient Groups, 2011-2017 Rankings Of Individual Pharma Companies, 2017 V. 2016 (According To Patient Groups Familiar With The Company)
Positionings Of Individual Pharma Companies, 2017 V. 2016  (According To Patient Groups That Work/Partner With The Company)

Profiles Of The 46 Companies, 2017

Charts And Tables For Each Of The 46 Companies:

  • Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with the company, 2017.
  • Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with the company, 2017.
  • Company scores among patient groups familiar with the company, and which worked with the company, for each of the 12 indicators of corporate reputation, 2017.
  • Percentage of the patient groups that worked with the company, but which also worked with other companies, 2017.
  • Profile of respondent patient groups familiar, and working, with the company, 2017: country headquarters; specialties; geographic remit; and types of relationships.
  • Snapshot view: where the company sits in the corporate rankings for each of the 12 indicators(in the higher, the middle, or the lower tier), 2017.
  • Overall rankings for the company according to patient groups familiar with the company, 2017.
  • Overall positionings for the company according to patient groups that work with the company, 2017.
  • Company rankings for each of the 12 indicators according to patient groups familiar, or working, with the company, 2017 v. 2016.
  • The company’s average scores across all indicators of corporate reputation, 2011-2017.
  • The company’s net promoter score, 2017.
Note: Product cover images may vary from those shown
3 of 6

Loading
LOADING...

4 of 6

FEATURED COMPANIES

  • AbbVie
  • Bayer
  • CSL Behring
  • Grifols
  • Merck & Co
  • Pierre Fabre Laboratories
  • MORE

HOW DID INDUSTRY FARE?

In 2017, patient-group attitudes towards pharma improved, after plummeting in 2016.

  • 43% of respondent patient groups thought that the pharma industry had an "Excellent" or "Good" corporate reputation in 2017—against 38% of patient groups saying the same in 2016.
  • In 2017, respondent patient groups ranked the pharma industry 3rd overall for corporate reputation out of 9 healthcare-industry sectors, the other sectors being: biotech; generic-drugs industry; health insurers (for-profit, and not-for-profit); medical-device industry; private-sector healthcare; and retail pharmacy. In 2016, patient groups ranked the pharmaceutical industry just 5th out of 9 healthcare sectors.

PHARMA ALSO IMPROVED IN KEY ACTIVITIES IN 2017...

2017's respondent patient groups rated pharma as improving its performance over 2016 at three areas of activity important to patients and patient groups: patient centredness (35% of the patient groups stated that the industry was “Excellent” or “Good” at this activity, compared with just 26% in 2016); integrity (31% described the industry as “Excellent” or “Good” at this activity, compared with just 28% in 2016); and in services provided ‘beyond the pill' (27% thought industry “Excellent” or “Good” at this, compared with just 20% in 2016).

BUT...

Respondent patient groups were far more negative in 2017 than in 2016 about several other pharma-industry activities. For instance, only 48% of 2017’s respondent patient groups judged pharma “Excellent” or “Good” at being innovative (down from 59% in 2016; which, in turn, was down from 69% in 2015). The 2017 figure is the lowest-reported percentage for the pharma industry's capacity to innovate since 2011 (when PatientView's  Corporate-Reputation surveys began). Equally negative were 2017 attitudes towards the industry’s ability to make high-quality products. Only 57% of respondent patient groups in 2017 saw pharma as “Excellent” or “Good” at making high-quality products (down from 64% in 2016—which, was, in itself, also down from 72% in 2015). Again, the 2017 figure is the lowest-reported percentage for pharma and high-quality products since 2011.

Why these results? On the negative side...

Major structural issues appear to be damaging the pharma industry’s R&D productivity. For example, companies are increasingly finding difficulty in differentiating their products from those of their competitors—and they are also having trouble tackling unmet patient needs, and innovating. Although 2017—unlike previous years—brought few, if any, large-scale safety problems, safety remains a perennial concern for most patient groups. Mental-health patient groups—which represent the largest proportion of respondents to the Corporate-Reputation survey (8% in 2017)—particularly emphasise the subject of patient safety. Patient groups, too, hold rising expectations that pharma will improve on its transparency levels; awareness of transparency indices is corresponding up among them. In addition (in the US, at least), patent/licencing battles between pharmaceutical companies have gained media attention—especially in light of President Trump’s continuing ‘politicisation’ of the topics of pharma pricing and profits.

Why these results? On the positive side...

The fact that the pharma industry as a whole saw an overall increase in its corporate reputation among patient groups during 2017 is probably due to the efforts made by the global headquarters of companies to improve corporate integrity. Integrity is a facet of company-wide authenticity, and forms one of the nine ‘attributes’ defined by PatientView as essential to successful corporate patient centricity [see details about the PatientView publication, Being Patient Centric]. A boost in the industry’s integrity may have been made possible by a reduction in mergers and acquisitions during 2017—a trend that gives companies a breathing space to reorganise, and to focus more on patients, and less on worrying about being taken over by competitors (or whether to take over competitors). Although the evidence suggests that a centralised approach is improving the authenticity of companies, what still remains to be seen is whether enough is being done to lift patient-group perceptions of companies across PatientView’s other eight ‘attributes’ of patient centricity (including patient safety, transparency, and R&D).

Note: Product cover images may vary from those shown
5 of 6
  • AbbVie
  • Acorda Therapeutics
  • Allergan
  • Almirall
  • Amgen
  • Astellas Pharma
  • AstraZeneca
  • Bayer
  • Bial
  • Biogen
  • Boehringer-Ingelheim
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb
  • Celgene
  • Chiesi Farmaceutici
  • CSL Behring
  • Daiichi Sankyo
  • Eisai
  • Eli Lilly (Lilly)
  • Ferring
  • Gedeon Richter
  • Gilead Sciences
  • Grifols
  • Grünenthal
  • GSK
  • Ipsen
  • Janssen (Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson)
  • LEO Pharma
  • Lundbeck
  • Menarini
  • Merck & Co
  • Merck KGaA
  • Novartis
  • Novo Nordisk
  • Octapharma
  • Otsuka
  • Pierre Fabre Laboratories
  • Pfizer
  • Roche
  • Sanofi
  • Servier
  • Shire
  • Takeda
  • Teva
  • UCB
  • Vertex Pharmaceuticals
  • ViiV Healthcare
Note: Product cover images may vary from those shown
6 of 6
Note: Product cover images may vary from those shown
Adroll
adroll