Post on 25-Feb-2018
THE CORPORATE REPUTATION OF PHARMA
IN 2016
—THE PATIENT PERSPECTIVE
GLOBAL EDITION
Feedback from 1,463 patient groups worldwide
PUBLISHED MARCH 2017
“Work with patient groups to ensure that the needs of both partners are being met. It is understood that pharma needs to make a profit. However, if they wish to work effectively with patient organisations, occasionally, they need to put profit aside.”
—National patient group specialising in kidney disease, Canada
In 2017, PatientView will publish 16 ‘Corporate Reputation of Pharma’ reports, analysing the results from the 1,463 patient groups responding to the 2016 survey. Specialities: Cancer I Diabetes I Haemophilia [new for 2016] I neurological conditions (MS and Parkinson’s [both new for 2016] I Mental health I Rare diseases I Skin conditions (7 reports) Geographic regions (in addition to this current Global report): South Asia/South-east Asia [new for 2016] I Europe I Germany I Italy I Nordic I Spain I UK I USA (8 reports)
CONTENTS
Executive summary Page 1
Methodology Page 7
Patient group relationships Page 12
Industry-wide findings Page 14
Improving corporate reputation Page 23
Rankings of 47 pharma companies Page 27
Positioning of pharma companies among patient-group partners
Page 38
Individual profiles of 47 companies Page 48
Appendices Page 191
I. Patient group comments
II. Pharma comments
III. Profile of respondents
TABLES AND
CHARTS
Pharma reputation among patient groups, 2011-2016 Page 2
Pharma reputation at innovation among patient groups, 2011-2016 Page 2
Companies sitting in the top tier in 2016 Page 3
Companies rankings in the top tier for each of the seven indicators of
corporate reputation Page 4
Companies showing the biggest improvement in overall rankings for
corporate reputation, 2016 versus 2015 Page 5
2016 top positions for companies among patient groups that worked
with the company, compared with the rankings among patient groups
familiar with the company
Page 5
The 14-point plan for improving patient centricity, according to 467
patient groups Page 6
Levels of familiarity by patient groups with 47 companies in 2016 Page 13
With how many patient groups do each of the 47 companies work? Page 13
How do respondent patient groups rate the corporate reputation of eight
healthcare sectors in 2016? Page 15
Healthcare-industry sector rankings for 2016 Page 15
How respondent patient groups rate the corporate reputation of multinational pharma, 2011-2016
Page 16
What do respondent patient groups believe has happened to the corporate reputation of the pharma industry over the past five years? 2016 results
Page 16
What do respondent patient groups believe has happened to the corporate reputation of the pharma industry over the past five years? 2011-2016
Page 17
What respondent patient groups say about pharma activities (all of which influence corporate standing with patients and patient groups)? [chart and table]
Page 18
Patient-groups’ perceptions of the pharma industry 2011-2016 at: making high-quality products; being innovative; patient safety; patient information; relationships with the media; acting with integrity; access to clinical trials; patient-centric strategy; ethical marketing; managing adverse news about products; philanthropy; transparency; services to patients; and fair pricing. Also included are patient-group perceptions from different countries/regions on pharma’s ability to innovate.
Pages 19-22
If a pharma company wishes to improve its corporate reputation with patients and patient groups, which single strategy would be MOST IMPORTANT for the company to follow?
Page 24
TABLES AND CHARTS, CONTINUED
If a pharma company wishes to improve its corporate reputation with patients and patient groups, which single strategy would be MOST IMPORTANT for the company to follow? [ordered high to low]
Page 25
What patient groups define as ‘patient centricity’ Page 26
Rankings of individual pharma companies among patient groups familiar with the company, 2016 versus 2015: indicators 1-7; final overall rankings, A-Z; final overall rankings, high to low
Page 27
How companies are positioned among the patient groups with which they partner: indicators 1-7; final overall rankings, A-Z; final overall rankings, high to low
Page 38
Charts and tables for each of the 47 companies:
Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with the company
Number of patient groups saying they had a working relationship with the company
2016 company scores among patient groups familiar with the company, and which worked with the company, for each of the seven indicators of corporate reputation
2016 company average score for the seven indicators of corporate reputation among patient groups familiar with the company
2015 company performance for six indicators of corporate reputation (and its average score across the six indicators) among patient groups familiar with the company
Snapshot view: where does the company sit in the 2016 corporate rankings for each of the seven indicators (in the low, the middle, or the high tier)?
2016 and 2015 company rankings for each of the indicators of corporate reputation among patient groups familiar with the company. 2016 company positions for each of the indicators of corporate reputation among patient groups which worked with the company
Companies’ best indicators in 2016 among patient groups familiar with the company
Percentage of the patient groups that worked with the company in 2016—but which also worked with other companies
Country analyses, 2016: performance of the company in different countries/regions, compared with its own global average for 2016
Therapeutic-area analyses 2016: performance of the company in different therapy areas, compared with its own global average for 2016
Pages 48-190
Profile of the 1,463 patient-group respondents: specialties, geographic headquarters, and geographic remit
Pages 227-230
TABLES AND CHARTS, CONTINUED
AbbVie page 50
Allergan page 53
Almirall page 56
Amgen page 59
Astellas page 62
AstraZeneca page 65
Bayer page 68
Bial page 71
Biogen page 74
Boehringer Ingelheim page 77
B-MS page 80
Celgene page 83
Chiesi page 86
Eisai page 89
Eli Lilly page 92
Ferring page 95
Gedeon Richter page 98
Gilead Sciences page 101
Grifols page 104
Grünenthal page 107
GSK page 110
Hospira page 113
Ipsen page 116
Janssen page 119
LEO Pharma page 122
Lundbeck page 125
Mallinckrodt page 128
Menarini page 131
Merck & Co page 134
Merck KGaA page 137
Mylan page 140
Novartis page 143
Novo Nordisk page 146
Octapharma page 149
Otsuka page 152
Pfizer page 155
Roche page 158
Sandoz page 161
Sanofi page 164
Servier page 167
Shire page 170
Stada Arzneimittel page 173
Takeda page 176
Teva page 179
UCB page 182
Valeant page 185
ViiV Healthcare page 188
Charts and tables for each of the 47 companies:
Page 7
PatientView’s Corporate Reputation of Pharma—from a Patient Perspective, 2016Global edition
©P
ati
entV
iew
20
17
METHODOLOGY
Page 8
PatientView’s Corporate Reputation of Pharma—from a Patient Perspective, 2016Global edition
©P
ati
entV
iew
20
17
PatientView’s corporate reputation study has
been running for six years in a row (since 2011),
allowing a long-term overview of developments in
the corporate reputation of the pharma industry,
and illustrating what patient groups see as
important during that time. The results of the
study are highly appreciated by the pharma
industry, and permit companies to better
understand the views of patient groups, and learn
what patient representatives regard to be
genuinely patient-centric policies.
What is corporate reputation?
Patient-group participants to the PatientView
corporate-reputation survey are asked about their
opinion of a company’s corporate reputation.
They are asked whether companies are meeting
the expectations of their patient group.
Why we are measuring perceptions?
Only one definition is provided to respondent
patient groups—that for the phrase ‘corporate
reputation’. Other terms used in the study (such
as ‘patient centricity’) are not defined for survey
respondents. This is because PatientView wishes
to measure perceptions only.
How to measure corporate reputation?
When the study was first devised, in 2011,
PatientView had already assembled a consensus
view from patient groups on what they believed
contributed to pharma’s corporate reputation. At
the same time, PatientView consulted with a
number of pharma executives, to get the
industry’s own input into the issues of importance
surrounding corporate reputation from a patient
perspective. The result was a questionnaire
combining the outlooks. The questionnaire has
remained largely unchanged since it was first
launched, to permit comparative year-by-year
analyses to be made over the study’s six-year
timeframe.
Removing bias?
Inevitably, bias can creep into any survey. We
have tried to reduce the levels of bias by:
Offering anonymity. Patient groups
responding to the survey can do so anonymously
(though PatientView itself does collect contact
details, to ensure that respondents are valid
patient organisations). The reports written about
the results of previous years’ surveys have
anonymised the names of the patient groups that
offered quotes (and which did not wish to be
anonymous). The aim was to remove any
possibility that a patient group’s answers and
quotes might have been prejudiced by the
knowledge that its name would appear alongside
its comments. However, PatientView has
received several requests from patient groups to
be named in PatientView reports on corporate
reputation. Therefore, the 2016 reports will
include the names of patient groups that are
happy for their quotes to be attributed [see
Appendix 1].
Accommodating the large variety of
companies. The pharma companies included in
the study vary greatly in size, specialisation, and
country of headquarters. To try to even out such
a diverse field, all assessments about a specific
pharma company are made by patient groups
claiming familiarity with that company, or which
have worked with the company in the past five
years.
Levelling the playing field. When collecting
the views of respondent patient groups,
PatientView attempts to ensure that the
proportion of patient groups working with each
company is roughly similar. This is because
patient groups that work with a company tend to
METHODOLOGY OF THE 2016 SURVEYCHANGES FROM 2015, INEVITABLE BIAS, ANDIMPORTANT ANOMALIES
Page 9
PatientView’s Corporate Reputation of Pharma—from a Patient Perspective, 2016Global edition
©P
ati
entV
iew
20
17
(though not always) take a more favourable view
of that company than patient groups which do not
have a close association. The 2016 survey,
however, still continues to see significant
variability in the percentage of patient groups
working with each company, as a proportion of all
patient groups familiar with each company.
Avoiding geographic bias. Over the years,
PatientView has been gradually increasing the
number of non-English languages into which the
questionnaire is translated. The intention is to
avoid geographic bias is to look at the annual
decline in the number of UK respondents. When
the survey was first launched in 2011, the
questionnaire was only translated into a few
European languages, and the respondent body
therefore contained a large proportion of UK
patient groups. By 2016, when the questionnaire
was available in 16 languages, UK patient groups
accounted for just 6% of the 1,463 respondent
patient groups—a more realistic level.
Bias that cannot be avoided
Several factors do lead to bias in the survey.
Patient-group perceptions. Patient groups
generally hold a wide range of views about
pharma (and its role in healthcare), contingent on
their specialty and country of origin. Some patient
groups are more sceptical of pharma than others.
For instance, mental-health patient groups, and
patient groups based in the USA, form two
categories of patient group that are often more
negative about pharma than, say, rare-disease
patient groups, or patient groups based in
Eastern Europe. Therefore, companies
specialising in mental health, or which are
commented upon by a large number of US
patient groups, may experience lower rankings.
Company size. The biggest of the
multinational companies tend to gain more
patient-group assessments than the smaller
companies. Those larger numbers of responses
make it harder for the big companies to move up
or down the rankings over the years, since, for
that to occur, many more patient groups will have
to change their opinions. The smaller pharma
companies have a greater chance of moving
significantly up or down the rankings over the
years, since only a limited number of patient
groups’ opinions need to change for that to
happen.
The ‘Danish question.’ Companies are often
judged by patient groups from their own native
countries according to criteria different to the
indicators used in the PatientView questionnaire.
Factors such as being a good employer, and
making contributions to the community, inevitably
influence the responses from these patient
groups. The bias is particularly pronounced in the
case of Denmark, the home country of at least
three of the leading pharma companies included
in the survey.
The questionnaire
The questionnaire is divided into two parts:
1. Industry-wide questions.
2. Company-specific questions.
Industry-wide questions
Patient groups responding to the October 2016-
February 2017 survey were (as in previous years)
asked to comment on three aspects of the
pharma industry’s 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
METHODOLOGY OF 2016 SURVEY, CHANGES FROM2015, INEVITABLE BIAS, AND IMPORTANTANOMALIES
Page 10
PatientView’s Corporate Reputation of Pharma—from a Patient Perspective, 2016Global edition
©P
ati
entV
iew
20
17
various activities of relevance to patients and
patient groups.
Company-specific questions
Between 2011 and 2015, six indicators were
used to assess the corporate reputation of
individual pharma companies:
I: Whether the company has an effective patient-
centred strategy.
II: The quality of the information that the
company provides to patients.
III: The company’s record on patient safety.
IV: The usefulness to patients of the company’s
products.
V: The company’s record of transparency with
external stakeholders.
VI: Whether the company acts with integrity.
For the 2016 survey, a new, seventh, indicator
was added:
VII: Whether a company is successful in its
patient-group relationships.
Each respondent patient group is asked to
identify the three pharma companies that it
believes to be “best” at each of the (now) seven
indicators of corporate reputation.
Percentages provided in the resulting
PatientView ‘Corporate Reputation’ reports
between 2011 and 2015 were calculated for each
individual company, based only on the opinions
of the respondent patient groups claiming
familiarity with that company, and which
answered the specific question.
Which companies are assessed?
Companies included in the survey analyses must
have a minimum of completed responses from 20
patient groups familiar with them. For 2016, 47
companies qualified (in alphabetic order):
AbbVie I Allergan I Almirall I Amgen I Astellas
Pharma I AstraZeneca I Bayer I Bial (new for
2016) I Biogen I Boehringer Ingelheim I Bristol-
Myers Squibb I Celgene I Chiesi Farmaceutici I
Eisai I Eli Lilly (Lilly) I Ferring I Gedeon Richter I
Gilead Sciences I Grifols I Grünenthal I GSK I
Hospira I Ipsen I Janssen (Pharmaceutical
Companies of Johnson & Johnson) I LEO
Pharma I Lundbeck I Mallinckrodt I Menarini I
Merck & Co I Merck KGaA I Mylan I Novartis I
Novo Nordisk I Octapharma I Otsuka I Pfizer I
Roche I Sandoz I Sanofi I Servier I Shire I Stada
Arzneimittel I Takeda I Teva I UCB I Valeant I
ViiV Healthcare.
Refinements to the methodology and
analyses for 2016
1. The list of the specialties of respondent patient
groups was expanded for 2016.
2. A new, 7th, indicator of corporate reputation
was added in 2016: success in patient-group
relationships.
3. The questions that elicit potential quotes from
respondent patient groups became more probing
in 2016. For each indicator of corporate
reputation, patient groups were asked how
pharma companies could improve their
performance. Appendix I contains a selection of
patient-group quotes regarding the first indicator,
patient centricity. Quotes about the other
indicators will follow in later reports in 2016.
4. Three new languages were introduced for
2016, bringing the total to 16 languages: Danish |
Dutch | English | Finnish | French | German |
Greek | Hungarian | Italian | Japanese | Korean |
Portuguese | Polish | Spanish | Swedish | Turkish
(The languages underlined are new for 2016.)
METHODOLOGY OF 2016 SURVEY, CHANGES FROM2015, INEVITABLE BIAS, AND IMPORTANTANOMALIES
Page 11
PatientView’s Corporate Reputation of Pharma—from a Patient Perspective, 2016Global edition
©P
ati
entV
iew
20
17
5. Finally, in addition to ranking companies by the
opinions of the patient groups familiar with them,
PatientView added for 2016 the ranking of
companies by patient groups that have worked
with them.
Footnotes
Rankings are calculated to three decimal
places.
Bial was a new addition to the rankings for
2016.
Important features of the 2016 survey
More respondent haemophilia patient
groups. The 2016 study captured the views of 46
respondent haemophilia patient groups worldwide
(many more than in previous years). Their input
had an impact (sometimes significant) on the
rankings of six companies operating in that
therapy area: Bayer, Biogen, Grifols, Novo
Nordisk, Octapharma, and Shire.
Hungarian. The 2016 study was conducted in
Hungarian for the first time—with the
consequence that 32 patient groups responded
from Hungary (again, many more than in previous
years). The input of these patient groups had a
significant impact on the rankings of Gedeon
Richter, a Hungary-based pharma company. Of
the 66 patient groups worldwide which claimed
familiarity with Gedeon, 21 were from Hungary.
Asian. The 2016 study was also conducted in
Japanese and Korean for the first time, helping
the survey to collect more responses than usual
from patient groups based in south Asia and
south-east Asia—a total of 82 (including from
Australia, Cambodia, Indonesia, Japan, Korea,
Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, Taiwan,
Thailand, and Vietnam). Japanese companies
featuring in the analyses may have been affected
by the input of these Asian patient groups—
particularly Eisai (of the 69 patient groups
worldwide familiar with it, 14 were based in Asia),
and Otsuka (9 in Asia, out of 41 worldwide).
Diabetes. Of the 90 diabetes patient groups
worldwide that responded to the survey in 2016,
26 were based in Finland (most with a local
geographic remit). Their input could have an
impact on the rankings of diabetes specialist
Novo Nordisk, because of the Nordic connection.
Worked-with calculations. Companies have
also been given positions in a league table in
2016 according to the responses received from
patient groups that work with them. However,
the number of such patient groups were very
small for three pharma companies: Bial (7), Stada
(7), and Mallinckrodt (9). Therefore, the worked-
with positionings for these three companies could
be erroneous.
METHODOLOGY OF 2016 SURVEY, CHANGES FROM2015, INEVITABLE BIAS, AND IMPORTANTANOMALIES
Page 12
PatientView’s Corporate Reputation of Pharma—from a Patient Perspective, 2016Global edition
©P
ati
entV
iew
20
17
PATIENT-GROUPRELATIONSHIPSWITH PHARMA
Page 13
PatientView’s Corporate Reputation of Pharma—from a Patient Perspective, 2016Global edition
©P
ati
entV
iew
20
17
Levels of familiarity by patient groups with 47 companies in 2016
% of respondent patient groups saying that they were familiar with the company
HOW FAMILIAR ARE PATIENT GROUPS WITHPHARMA COMPANIES? AND ...
WHICH COMPANY WORKS WITH THE MOSTPATIENT GROUPS?
With how many patient groups do each of the 47 companies work?
Number of respondent patient groups saying that they were worked with the
company
Page 49
PatientView’s Corporate Reputation of Pharma—from a Patient Perspective, 2016Global edition
©P
ati
entV
iew
20
17
Key to company data
1st page
Company name
2016 results How many respondent patient groups commented on the company? How many of these respondent patient groups said that they worked with the company? What percentage of the respondent patient groups (either those just familiar with the company,
or which worked with the company) said that the company was “best” for an indicator? How did the company do, overall, across the seven indicators of corporate reputation? What was
the average score for the seven indicators of corporate reputation in 2016?
2015 results What were the company’s average score for the six indicators of corporate reputation in 2015? How many patient group respondents familiar with the company thought it “best” for the six
indicators of corporate reputation in 2015?
2nd page
2016 results In a brief snapshot, how well did the company do at corporate reputation from a
patient-group perspective? In other words, in which tier of the corporate-reputationleague table does the company sit for each indicator of corporate reputation? Thedefinitions of top, middle, and lower tier are seen on the left.
The company’s rankings for the seven indicators among patient groups familiar withthe company; and the company’s positioning for the seven indicators among patientgroups which work with the company.
The company’s overall ranking for corporate reputation in 2016 among 47companies—from a patient perspective.
2015 results The company’s overall ranking for corporate reputation in 2015 among 48 companies—from a
patient perspective.
3rd page
2016 results The company’s background, its revenue, products, and mission statement. The profile of the patient groups worldwide responding about the company in 2016: country
headquarters, therapy areas, and geographic remit. The other companies with which the profiled patient groups also worked. General remarks about the results. Country analyses: performance of the company at corporate reputation in different countries/
regions, compared with the company’s own global average. The chart shows percentagesrelating to the difference between the company’s global averages for the seven indicators, andits country/regional average.
Analyses by therapy areas: performance of the company at corporate reputation in differenttherapy areas, compared with the company’s own global average. The chart shows percentagesrelating to the difference between the company’s therapy-wide averages for the seven indicators,and its country/regional average.
I. Patient centricityII. Patient informationIII. Patient safetyIV. Usefulness of products
V. TransparencyVI. IntegrityVII. Patient-group relationships (new for 2016)
In 2016, the seven indicators were:
(21% plus)
(10%-19.9%)
(0%-9.9%)
Page 227
PatientView’s Corporate Reputation of Pharma—from a Patient Perspective, 2016Global edition
©P
ati
entV
iew
20
17
APPENDIX III
������� �� ��� 1,463 ���������� ������� ������
Main specialisations
Geographic headquarters—by country
Geographic remit
Page 228
PatientView’s Corporate Reputation of Pharma—from a Patient Perspective, 2016Global edition
©P
ati
entV
iew
20
17
MAIN SPECIALISATION OF 2016’S 1,463 RESPONDENTPATIENT GROUPS—NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
Page 229
PatientView’s Corporate Reputation of Pharma—from a Patient Perspective, 2016Global edition
©P
ati
entV
iew
20
17
COUNTRY HEADQUARTERS OF 2016’S1,463 RESPONDENT PATIENT GROUPS
—NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
Page 230
PatientView’s Corporate Reputation of Pharma—from a Patient Perspective, 2016Global edition
©P
ati
entV
iew
20
17
GEOGRAPHIC REMIT OF 2016’S1,463 RESPONDENT PATIENT GROUPS
—PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS
Contact details PatientView Registered office: One Fleet Place, London, EC4M 7WS, UK Tel: +44-(0)1547-520-965 E-mail: info@patient-view.com Registered in England, number: 3944382 Data protection registration number: Z7133076 VAT registration number: GB-760-985-885
Copyright © 2017 PatientView Ltd. All rights reserved. This booklet is the property of PatientView, and no part may be reproduced without permission, or passed on to any third party without the permission of PatientView.