The Corporate Reputation of Pharma Companies, 2017 - The Patient Perspective of 52 Skin Patient Groups - Skin Edition

  • ID: 4593495
  • Report
  • 115 pages
  • PatientView
1 of 5
Skin Patient Groups Welcome Pharma's New Products, but Argue that Greater Account Should be Taken of Patients' Perspectives

FEATURED COMPANIES

  • Abbvie
  • Astrazeneca
  • Boehringer Ingelheim
  • Eli Lilly
  • Janssen
  • Merck & Co
  • MORE
  • The views of 52 skin patient groups
  • Drawn from a November 2017 - February 2018 survey

Skin patient groups are more appreciative of pharma than patient groups in most other therapy areas - especially companies that are demonstrating an increasing investment in skin-conditions R&D
The percentage of skin patient groups believing that the pharma industry’s corporate reputation was “Excellent” or “Good” has increased in the last few years—from 45% in 2015, to 60% in 2017. The latter figure is significantly higher than the equivalent 2017 average among patient groups of all therapy areas (43%). Furthermore, skin patient groups ranked the pharmaceutical industry 1st out of nine healthcare sectors for corporate reputation in 2017 (in 2016, they had ranked the industry 2nd).

The reason for these positive views has much to do with some pharma companies' latest R&D output in the field of dermatology. The importance that skin patient groups place on new product development can be seen from Chart 2, which compares the views of skin patient groups with those of the attitudes of patient groups from 22 other specialties.

Thus, in 2017, as many as 62% of the 52 skin patient groups thought that the pharmaceutical industry was “Excellent” or “Good” at innovation. Only patient groups specialising in pulmonary hypertension and haemophilia were more positive about the industry’s ability to innovate in 2017.

Attitudes to pharma differ by type of skin patient group
However, attitudes among the various types of skin patient groups vary, according to the scale of pharma investment in their particular dermatological area. For instance, patient groups specialising in alopecia are more negative towards pharma's R&D than those specialising in atopic dermatitis, eczema, or psoriasis.

How can pharma improve?
The 52 skin patient groups respondent to the 2017 'Corporate Reputation of Pharma' survey used their comments to outline some of the issues facing new skin-treatment products:

  • The need for a more holistic approach to skin diseases and their treatment (involving not just medication).
  • More convenient methods of administering dosage. One suggestion was the creation of patient-advocacy boards, through which patients could give their feedback regarding the development of pill bottles, blister packs, aids to help opening the above items, etc.
  • High prices can form a barrier to patient uptake of skin treatments (particularly in countries where skin conditions such as psoriasis are still considered a mere cosmetic, rather than a truly medical, problem). Pricing is a factor that, in general, requires to be tackled-especially with the launch of costly biologics. Patient groups add, though, that their views can help establish real medical needs - not just those determined by clinicians and pharma - thereby validating access to treatment.
  • Respondent skin patient groups suggested that the pharmaceutical industry could better determine real patient safety concerns by gathering information on patient experiences. For instance, many patients with a skin condition would like to receive an assurance that a product does not contain allergens (such as perfume). Patients also want access to continuously-updated patient-safety information, above and beyond what is contained in the medicine’s patient-information leaflet.
  • A number of skin patient groups referred to their familiarity with the range of challenges faced by patients with skin conditions. Such in-depth expertise means that greater consultation with patient groups by the industry could only enhance the quality of R&D.

The skin patient groups also provided advice on how companies could improve their methods of partnering with patient groups-pointing out that relationships should be equal, with regular contact (and that, if a company ends contact, it should be fully transparent as to why). Pharma's current tendency to overlook certain types of skin conditions could also be tackled. One patient group specialising in epidermolysis bullosa stated that it only had a close affiliation with pharma companies working in the field of rare diseases, rather than with those in the field of dermatology.

So, how did the companies perform at corporate reputation in 2017, in the viewpoints of skin patient groups?

2017’s skin corporate-reputation results were greatly influenced by the scale of investment and interest shown by the companies that were working in the field of dermatology. Not surprisingly, companies contemplating selling their dermatology divisions, or those considering the therapy area secondary to their main product lines, were assessed harshly for corporate reputation by skin patient groups. On the other hand, companies with new biologic skin-condition products, or expanding their investments in the therapy area, fared well for corporate reputation among skin patient groups.

  • Novartis was ranked overall 1st for corporate reputation out of 15 companies in 2017 by skin patient groups familiar with the company. The company was also ranked 1st for as many as nine of the 12 indicators of corporate reputation by skin patient groups familiar with it.
  • Sanofi made the biggest leap up the corporate-reputation rankings among skin patient groups familiar with it - ranking 9th in 2017, compared with 15th in 2016.
READ MORE
Note: Product cover images may vary from those shown
2 of 5

FEATURED COMPANIES

  • Abbvie
  • Astrazeneca
  • Boehringer Ingelheim
  • Eli Lilly
  • Janssen
  • Merck & Co
  • MORE

Executive Summary
Skin Patient-Group Relationships With Pharma, 2017
Industry-Wide Findings From Skin Patient Groups, 2017
Rankings Of The 15 Pharma Companies, 2017 V. 2016
Among Skin Patient Groups Familiar With The Companies
Positionings Of Seven Pharma Companies, 2017 V. 2016
Among Skin Patient Groups That Work/Partner With The Companies
Profiles Of The 15 Companies, 2017

Appendices
I. Skin Patient Groups: Views On Pharma; And Recommendations For Improvement
Ii. Profiles Of Respondent Skin Patient Groups, 2017

Tables and Charts
Main Specialisation Of 2017’S 52 Respondent Skin Patient Groups; Number
The Pharma Industry’S Corporate Reputation Over Time, 2015-2017 (According To Skin Patient Groups)
Companies Ranking 1St For Each Of The 12 Indicators, 2017 (According To Skin Patient Groups Familiar With The Company)
Number Of Skin Patient Groups Familiar, And Partnering, With The 15 Companies, 2017
The Types Of Relationships That Skin Patient Groups Have With Partner Pharmaceutical Companies, 2017
The Corporate Reputation Of The Pharmaceutical Industry, 2017 V. 2016-Compared With That Of Eight Other Healthcare Sectors (According To Skin Patient Groups)
The Pharma Industry’S Corporate Reputation Over Time, 2015-2017 (According To Skin Patient Groups)
Skin Patient Groups’ Views On The Efficacy Of The Pharmaceutical Industry At The Indicators Of Corporate Reputation, 2017-Chart And Table
Skin Patient Groups’ Views On The Efficacy Of The Pharmaceutical Industry At The Indicators Of Corporate Reputation, 2017 V. 2016 V. Patient Groups Of All Therapy Areas, 2017
Skin Patient Groups’ Views On The Efficacy Of The Pharmaceutical Industry At Various Indicators Of Corporate Reputation, 2017, Compared With The Views Of Patient Groups
From 22 Other Therapy Areas-Analysis By Each Indicator
Rankings Of 15 Individual Pharma Companies, 2017 V. 2016 (According To Skin Patient Groups Familiar With The Company)
Positionings Of Seven Individual Pharma Companies, 2017 V. 2016 (According To Skin Patient Groups That Work/Partner With The Company)
Profiles Of The 15 Companies, 2017

CHARTS AND TABLES FOR EACH OF THE 15 COMPANIES:

  • Number of skin patient groups claiming familiarity with the company, 2017.
  • Number of skin patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with the company, 2017.
  • Company performance scores among skin 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 skin patient groups that worked with the company, but which also worked with other companies, 2017.
  • Profile of respondent skin patient groups familiar with the company, 2017: country headquarters; geographic remit; and types of relationships with the company.
  • The company PCRIs (Patient Corporate Reputation Index) for each of the 12 indicators-as assessed by skin patient groups familiar with the company, 2017 v. 2016 v. 2015.
  • Overall rankings for the company, according to skin patient groups familiar with the company, 2017.
  • Overall positionings for the company, according to skin patient groups that work with the company, 2017.
  • Company rankings for each of the 12 indicators according to skin patient groups familiar, or working, with the company, 2017 v. 2016.
  • Company’s Net Promoter Score 2017, as assessed by skin patient groups that work with the company.
Note: Product cover images may vary from those shown
3 of 5

Loading
LOADING...

4 of 5
  • Abbvie
  • Amgen
  • Astrazeneca
  • Bayer
  • Boehringer Ingelheim
  • Celgene
  • Eli Lilly
  • GSK
  • Janssen
  • Leo Pharma
  • Merck & Co
  • Novartis
  • Pfizer
  • Roche
  • Sanofi
Note: Product cover images may vary from those shown
5 of 5
Note: Product cover images may vary from those shown
Adroll
adroll