THE CORPORATE REPUTATION OF PHARMA IN 2016 · PDF fileTHE CORPORATE REPUTATION OF PHARMA IN...

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

8

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

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:

PatientView’s Corporate Reputation of Pharma—from a Patient Perspective, 2016Global edition

©P

ati

entV

iew

20

17

METHODOLOGY


©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


©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


©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.)



©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.



©P

ati

entV

iew

20

17

PATIENT-GROUPRELATIONSHIPSWITH PHARMA


©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


©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%)


©P

ati

entV

iew

20

17

APPENDIX III

�� 1,463 ��

Main specialisations

Geographic headquarters—by country

Geographic remit

Contact details PatientView Registered office: One Fleet Place, London, EC4M 7WS, UK Tel: +44-(0)1547-520-965 E-mail: [email protected] 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.

THE CORPORATE REPUTATION OF PHARMA IN 2016 · PDF fileTHE CORPORATE REPUTATION OF PHARMA IN...

Documents

Transcript of THE CORPORATE REPUTATION OF PHARMA IN 2016 · PDF fileTHE CORPORATE REPUTATION OF PHARMA IN...