+353-1-416-8900REST OF WORLD
+44-20-3973-8888REST OF WORLD
1-917-300-0470EAST COAST U.S
1-800-526-8630U.S. (TOLL FREE)

PRINTER FRIENDLY

The Corporate Reputation of Pharma in 2019 - The Patient Perspective Bleeding-Disorders Edition: The Views of 52 Bleeding-Disorders Patient Groups

  • ID: 5170950
  • Report
  • July 2020
  • Region: Global
  • 33 Pages
  • PatientView

FEATURED COMPANIES

  • Bayer
  • CSL Behring Grifols
  • Novo Nordisk
  • Octapharma
  • Pfizer
  • Roche/Genentech
  • MORE

This is the 4th edition of 'The Corporate Reputation of Pharma - from the Perspective of Bleeding-Disorders Patient Groups'. These 2019 results are drawn from a survey of bleeding-disorders patient groups, conducted November 2019 - February 2020.

About the 2019 survey of bleeding-disorders patient groups

  • 2019’s 52 respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups came from 28 different countries (with the highest representation from Russia, at 13 bleeding-disorders patient groups).
  • The 52 respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups had the following geographic remits: 6% an international remit; 50% a national remit; 29% a regional (within one country); and 14% local.

On the relationships that bleeding-disorders patient groups had with pharma, 2019

  • 73% of the 52 bleeding-disorders patient groups responding to the 2019 survey worked with at least one pharma company.

What this report contains

Industry-wide analyses: The 2019 bleeding-disorders 'Corporate-Reputation' report examines the issues of importance to bleeding-disorders patient groups, including:

  • levels of industry innovation;
  • provision of high-quality products;
  • access to treatments;
  • transparency of the industry; and
  • drug pricing.

Analyses are reinforced by extensive comments from 2019’s respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups, organised according to the country headquarters of the respondent patient groups.

Individual company analyses: The 9 pharma companies are reviewed by 2019’s 52 respondent bleeding-disorder patient groups for overall corporate reputation, and for performance at 12 individual indicators of corporate reputation.

Key industry-wide findings for bleeding disorders, 2019

Despite expressing a generally-positive attitude toward the pharma industry, 2019's respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups do demonstrate signs of concern about pharma’s performance.  Patient groups specialising in bleeding disorders generally hold a more positive view of the pharmaceutical industry than patient groups of other therapy areas. As many as 65% of 2019’s 52 respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups judged the industry to have an “Excellent” or “Good” corporate reputation that year. Their positive attitude to the pharmaceutical industry in 2019 was up from that of 2018 when the equivalent figure was 50%

Although the respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups expressed appreciation that the industry was able to produce treatments that allowed patients with bleeding disorders to live a much-more normal life than they would otherwise, these patient groups also seemed increasingly unsure whether the industry could carry on creating new effective products for their therapy area. 68% of 2019’s respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups judged the pharma industry “Excellent” or “Good” at providing high-quality products of benefit to patients. Though high, the figure was significantly down from 2016’s equivalent of 86%. Similarly, 68% of 2019’s respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups regarded pharma as “Excellent” or “Good” at innovation - down on 77% of 2016.

Respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups observed declines in pharma’s performance at many activities since 2016. Worst, according to them, was the pharmaceutical industry’s levels of patient centricity. The industry’s record at this indicator of corporate reputation has fluctuated significantly among respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups since 2016. In 2019, only 38% of the 52 respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups called the pharma industry “Excellent” or “Good” at being patient centric. The equivalent figure in 2018 was 56% [see chart below].

Another significant drop was noted for patient safety. In 2019, 51% of the respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups stated that pharma was “Excellent” or “Good” at this activity. The figure has been steadily declining since 2016 when 69% of respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups stated the same.

Pricing, transparency, and access to medicines, 2019

  • Fair pricing policies. In 2019, only 9% of the respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups stated that pharma was “Excellent” or “Good” at this activity.
  • Transparency in pricing policies - the equivalent figure from 2019’s respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups was 20%.
  • Ensuring access to medicines - the equivalent figure was 32%.

The comments provided to the 2019 survey by respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups highlight several reasons as to why the bleeding-disorders patient-advocacy community is becoming increasingly uncertain about the value of the pharmaceutical industry. These patient groups stipulated a number of areas of need.

Key company findings for bleeding disorders, 2019

9 companies are included in the bleeding-disorders analysis of 2019’s ‘Corporate-Reputation’ results. The companies are ranked for their performance at 12 individual indicators of corporate reputation, as judged by respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups familiar with the companies.

Roche/Genentech was ranked overall 1st out of 9 companies for corporate reputation in 2019 by the 46 respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups familiar with the company. Roche/Genentech was also ranked 1st for 9 of the 12 individual indicators of corporate reputation. Roche/Genentech was ranked overall 1st for corporate reputation in 2019 out of 7 companies, as judged by its 24 respondent partner bleeding-disorders patient groups.

Takeda/Shire was ranked overall 2nd out of 9 companies for corporate reputation in 2019 by the 43 respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups familiar with the company. Takeda/Shire was ranked 1st for three of the 12 indicators of corporate reputation.

Pfizer was ranked overall 3rd out of 9 companies for corporate reputation in 2019 by the 36 respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups familiar with the company - a jump of two places from Pfizer’s 2018 overall ranking.

Comparing just the largest pharma companies (‘big pharma’), 2019 v. 2018

To enable peer-to-peer comparisons of the results, the analyst recalculates overall rankings for the 12 indicators of corporate reputation for just the very-largest, multinational, multi-therapy pharma companies included in the bleeding-disorders analyses. These ‘big-pharma’ results provide a different perspective on how the largest pharmaceutical companies fare for corporate reputation - enabling true peer-to-peer analyses.

A note about COVID-19 and the 2019 study’s results

Covid-19 should have a relatively limited impact on many of the results of the 2019 ‘Corporate-Reputation’ study, because the survey took place (November 2019 to late-February 2020) largely before the crisis became global. However, early announcements about Covid-19 by some pharma companies (during January and February 2020) may have influenced the views of bleeding-disorders patient groups responding to the ‘Corporate-Reputation’ survey during those last two months of the survey.

Note: Product cover images may vary from those shown

FEATURED COMPANIES

  • Bayer
  • CSL Behring Grifols
  • Novo Nordisk
  • Octapharma
  • Pfizer
  • Roche/Genentech
  • MORE

1 Executive summary
8 Relationships that bleeding-disorders patient groups have with pharma, 2019
11 Industry-wide findings, 2019
16 Rankings of 9 pharma companies, 2019 (v. 2018)among bleeding-disorders patient groups familiar with the companies
24 Rankings of 7 pharma companies, 2019 (v. 2018)among bleeding-disorders patient groups that work with the companies
32 Profiles of the 13 companies, 2019 (v. 2018)

APPENDICES
I What bleeding-disorders patient groups say on pharma (and how the industry can improve), 2019/2020
II Profiles of respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups, 2019 

Tables and Charts

  • Respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups-their familiarity, and partnerships, with 9 select major multinationals, 2019
  • Percentage of respondent patient groups from different therapy areas stating that the pharmaceutical industry had an “Excellent” or “Good” corporate reputation, 2019  
  • Percentage of respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups stating that the pharma industry was “Excellent” or “Good” at being patient centric, and at ensuring patient safety
  • Percentage of respondent patient groups stating that the pharmaceutical industry was “Excellent” or “Good” at ensuring patient access to medicines, 2019-by therapy area [Figure in brackets equals the number of respondent patient groups]
  • The rankings of 5 ‘big-pharma’ companies at corporate reputation among respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups familiar with the companies, 2019 v. 2018-ordered highest to lowest
  • The rankings of 4 ‘big-pharma’ companies at corporate reputation among respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups that work with the companies, 2019 v. 2018-ordered highest to lowest
  • Respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups: familiarity, and partnerships, with pharma companies, 2019  
  • The types of working relationships that respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups had with pharma companies, 2019  
  • The corporate reputation of the pharmaceutical industry, 2019 v. 2018-compared with that of 8 other healthcare sectors (according to respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups)  
  • The corporate reputation of the pharmaceutical industry, 2016-2019 (according to respondent bleeding disorders patient groups)
  • The perceived effectiveness of the pharmaceutical industry at carrying out specific activities, 2019 v. 2018(according to respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups)
  • Perceptions of the efficacy of the pharmaceutical industry at various activities of importance to patients and patient groups, 2016-2019 (according to respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups)  
  • Rankings of 9 individual pharma companies, 2019 v. 2018 (according to respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups familiar with the company)  
  • Rankings of 7 individual Respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups-their familiarity, and partnerships, with 9 select major multinationals, 2019
  • Percentage of respondent patient groups from different therapy areas stating that the pharmaceutical industry had an “Excellent” or “Good” corporate reputation, 2019  
  • Percentage of respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups stating that the pharma industry was “Excellent” or “Good” at being patient centric, and at ensuring patient safety
  • Percentage of respondent patient groups stating that the pharmaceutical industry was “Excellent” or “Good” at ensuring patient access to medicines, 2019-by therapy area [Figure in brackets equals the number of respondent patient groups]
  • The rankings of 5 ‘big-pharma’ companies at corporate reputation among respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups familiar with the companies, 2019 v. 2018-ordered highest to lowest
  • The rankings of 4 ‘big-pharma’ companies at corporate reputation among respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups that work with the companies, 2019 v. 2018-ordered highest to lowest
  • Respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups: familiarity, and partnerships, with pharma companies, 2019  
  • The types of working relationships that respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups had with pharma companies, 2019  
  • The corporate reputation of the pharmaceutical industry, 2019 v. 2018-compared with that of 8 other healthcare sectors (according to respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups)  
  • The corporate reputation of the pharmaceutical industry, 2016-2019 (according to respondent bleeding disorders patient groups)
  • The perceived effectiveness of the pharmaceutical industry at carrying out specific activities, 2019 v. 2018(according to respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups)
  • Perceptions of the efficacy of the pharmaceutical industry at various activities of importance to patients and patient groups, 2016-2019 (according to respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups)  
  • Rankings of 9 individual pharma companies, 2019 v. 2018 (according to respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups familiar with the company)  
  • Rankings of 7 individual pharma companies, 2019 v. 2018 (according to respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups that work or partner with the company) pharma companies, 2019 v. 2018 (according to respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups that work or partner with the company)

Profiles of the 9 companies, 2019 v. 2018; charts and tables

  • Number of respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups claiming familiarity with the company, 2019.
  • Number of respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with the company, 2019.
  • Profile of respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups familiar with the company, 2019: country headquarters; geographic remit; and types of relationships.
  • Company scores among respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups familiar with the company, and which work with the company, for each of the 12 indicators of corporate reputation, 2019.
  • Percentage of the respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups that work with the company, but which also work with other companies, 2019.
  • Overall rankings for the company, according to respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups familiar with the company, 2019 v. 2018.
  • Overall rankings for the company, according to respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups that work with the company, 2019 v. 2018.
  • Company rankings for each of the 12 indicators, according to respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups familiar, or working, with the company, 2019 v. 2018.
  • Snapshot view: where the company sits in the corporate tiers for each of the 12 indicators (in the higher, the middle, or the lower tier), as assessed by respondent bleeding-disorders patient groups familiar with the company, 2019.
  • The company’s Patient Corporate Reputation Indexes (PCRIs), 2016-2019-selected indicators.
Note: Product cover images may vary from those shown

Loading
LOADING...

  • Bayer
  • CSL Behring Grifols
  • Novo Nordisk
  • Octapharma  
  • Pfizer
  • Roche/Genentech
  • Sanofi
  • Takeda/Shire
Note: Product cover images may vary from those shown
Adroll
adroll