DUBLIN–(BUSINESS WIRE)–The “The Corporate Reputation of Pharma in 2019 – The Patient Perspective – Global Edition – The Views of 1,850 Patient Groups” report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com’s offering.

How did the Industry Perform?

Patient-group attitudes towards the pharma industry as a whole were more positive in 2019 than in any of the previous years this survey has been undertaken. Patient groups rated the pharmaceutical industry 1st for corporate reputation out of nine healthcare sectors (a first for the pharma industry).

• 46% of 2019’s respondent patient groups stated that the pharmaceutical industry had an “Excellent” or “Good” corporate reputation, ranking pharma 1st out of nine healthcare sectors for corporate reputation.

However, patient group attitudes do vary worldwide.

• The pharma industry’s overall corporate reputation was highest in 2019 among patient groups in Greece, Latin-American countries, Turkey, China, and Poland. By contrast, only 13% of the 2019’s respondent patient groups from Ireland described the industry as having an “Excellent” or “Good” corporate reputation.
• The largest improvements in pharma’s corporate reputation, 2018 to 2019, were seen in Greece, Latin-American countries, Portugal, and Canada. By contrast, respondent patient groups from Ireland reported the industry’s corporate reputation to be falling, 2018 to 2019.

2019’s respondent patient groups also stated that the pharma industry’s performance at activities of importance to patients had mostly improved since 2018.

(Read more…)

2019’s respondent patient groups clearly felt that the pharmaceutical industry, despite having made improvements, still has scope to do better, particularly in the areas of:

• Transparency
• Patient Engagement in R&D
• Fair Pricing Policies

Less than one-fifth of 2019’s respondent patient groups thought the pharmaceutical industry “Excellent” or “Good” at transparency (whether transparency in its pricing of products, in the sharing of its clinical data, or in its funding of external stakeholders).

Less than one-fifth of 2019’s respondent patient groups considered the pharmaceutical industry “Excellent” or “Good” at patient engagement in R&D (despite regular calls throughout 2019 by patient organisations and regulators for the further involvement of patients in this core pharma activity).

Only 10% of 2019’s respondent patient groups believed the pharmaceutical industry to be “Excellent” or “Good” at having fair pricing policies.

About the Survey and the Analyses

I. Results of a survey of 1,850 patient groups

• Survey conducted: November 2019 – February 2020.
• Survey conducted in 20 languages: Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Norwegian, Portuguese, Polish, Russian, Spanish, Swedish, Simplified Chinese, Traditional Chinese and Turkish.
• Industry-wide analyses: The pharma industry as a whole assessed at a wide range of activities important to patients and patient groups; its performance at corporate reputation compared with that of other healthcare sectors.
• Company analyses: 48 pharma companies analysed for performance at 12 indicators of corporate reputation by patient groups familiar with the company, and by patient groups that work or partner with the company.

II. Best-practice case studies from eight leading pharma companies

The eight contributing pharmaceutical companies are:

• Boehringer Ingelheim
• Gilead Sciences
• Ipsen
• Lundbeck (US division)
• Merck KGaA/EMD Serono
• Novartis
• Pfizer
• ViiV Healthcare

These eight companies tell their own stories about their patient-centric strategies, and what they were doing in 2019 (and have planned for 2020) to improve their corporate reputation with patients and patient groups.

A note about COVID-19

COVID-19 should have little impact on the results of the 2019 ‘Corporate-Reputation’ study, due to the timing of the survey (November 2019 to February 2020 – largely before the crisis became global). Only the opinions of the 15 respondent China-based patient groups may have been influenced by the epidemic.

However, COVID-19 is already creating greater public awareness of the pharmaceutical industry. On the one hand, the industry’s scientific abilities are being applauded. On the other hand, drug companies have come under pressure to reduce prices during the pandemic. The 2019 ‘Corporate-Reputation’ results can, therefore, serve as a platform to assist pharma in its corporate-reputation strategies, in the context of the COVID-19 crisis and thereafter at a time when the reputation of the pharmaceutical industry is very much in the public eye.

Key Topics Covered

1. Executive summary
2. Patient-group relationships with pharma, 2019
3. Industry-wide findings, 2019
4. Rankings of the 48 pharma companies, 2019 (v. 2018) among patient groups familiar with the companies
5. Rankings of the 48 pharma companies, 2019 (v. 2018) among patient groups that work with the companies
6. Profiles of the 48 companies, 2019 (v. 2018)

Appendices

1. Profiles of respondent patient groups, 2019
2. IMethodology
3. What 8 pharmaceutical companies say about their patient-oriented activities, 2019/2020
   

Tables and Charts

• The key therapy areas of the 2019 respondent patient groups
• The geographic spread of the 2019 respondent patient groups
• Corporate reputation of the pharmaceutical industry, 2011-2019 (percentage of respondent patient groups stating Excellent or Good)
• Corporate reputation of the pharmaceutical industry, 2019-by country (percentage of respondent patient groups stating Excellent or Good) [figure in brackets equals number of respondent patient groups]
• Percentage change in the corporate reputation of the pharmaceutical industry, 2019 v. 2018 – by country(respondent patient groups stating Excellent or Good) [figure in brackets equals number of respondent patient groups]
• Percentage of respondent patient groups stating that the pharmaceutical industry was Excellent or Good at being patient centric, 2019 – by country [figure in brackets equals number of respondent patient groups]
• Percentage of respondent patient groups stating that the pharmaceutical industry was Excellent or Good at ensuring access to medicines, 2019 – by country [figure in brackets equals number of respondent patient groups]
• Percentage of respondent patient groups stating that pharma was Excellent or Good at having fair pricing policies, 2019
• Companies’ respective increases in overall rankings in the Corporate-Reputation’ league table, 2019 v. 2018 – according to respondent patient groups that are familiar, and which work, with the company
• Percentage of respondent patient groups that stated None or They did not know any company that was Best at an activity, 2019
• Overall rankings of individual pharma companies among patient groups familiar with the company, 2019 v. 2018 – ordered high to low
• Companies’ NPS scores, 2019 – according to respondent patient groups that work with the company; ordered high to low
• The rankings of 14 ‘big-pharma’ companies at corporate reputation, 2019 v. 2018 – according to respondent patient groups familiar with the companies
• The rankings of 14 ‘big-pharma’ companies at corporate reputation, 2019 v. 2018 – according to respondent patient groups that work with the companies
• Patient groups: familiarity, and partnerships, with pharma companies, 2019 (according to respondent patient groups)
• The types of working relationships that respondent patient groups have 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 patient groups
• The corporate reputation of the pharmaceutical industry, 2011-2019 – according to respondent patient groups
• The perceived effectiveness of the pharmaceutical industry at carrying out specific activities, 2010 v. 2019 – according to respondent patient groups
• Perceptions of the efficacy of the pharmaceutical industry at various activities of importance to patient groups, 2019 v. previous years – according to respondent patient groups
• Rankings of individual pharma companies, 2019 v. 2018 – according to respondent patient groups familiar with the company
• Rankings of individual pharma companies, 2019 v. 2018 – according to respondent patient groups that work or partner with the company

Profiles of the 48 companies, 2019

Charts and Tables for Each of the 48 Companies:

• Number of respondent patient groups claiming familiarity with the company, 2019.
• Number of respondent patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with the company, 2019.
• Profile of respondent patient groups familiar with the company, 2019: country headquarters; specialties; geographic remit; and types of relationships.
• Company scores among respondent patient groups familiar with the company, and which worked with the company, for each of the 12 indicators of corporate reputation, 2019.
• Percentage of the respondent patient groups that worked with the company, but which also worked with other companies, 2019.
• Overall rankings for the company according to respondent patient groups familiar with the company, 2019 v. 2018.
• Overall rankings for the company according to respondent patient groups that work with the company, 2019 v. 2018.
• Company rankings for each of the 12 indicators according to respondent patient groups familiar, or working, with the company, 2019 v. 2018.
• Overall rankings among respondent patient groups familiar with the company, 2015-2019.
• 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 patient groups familiar with the company, 2019.
• 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 patient groups that work with the company, 2019.
• The company’s Net Promoter Score, 2019.
• The company’s Net Promoter Score, 2017-2019.

Companies Mentioned

• 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
• Ferring
• Gedeon Richter
• Gilead Sciences (including Kite Pharma)
• Grifols
• Grünenthal
• GSK
• Ipsen
• Janssen (Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson)
• LEO Pharma
• Lundbeck
• Menarini
• Merck KGaA/EMD Serono
• Merck & Co (MSD outside Canada and the US)
• Mundipharma
• Novartis
• Novo Nordisk
• Octapharma
• Otsuka
• Pfizer
• Pierre Fabre Laboratories
• Roche (Chugai in Japan; Genentech in the USA)
• Sandoz
• Sanofi
• Servier
• Takeda (including its 2018-2019 acquisition Shire)
• Teva
• UCB
• Vertex
• Vifor
• ViiV Healthcare

For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/2te1jp

Contacts

ResearchAndMarkets.com

Laura Wood, Senior Press Manager

[email protected]
For E.S.T Office Hours Call 1-917-300-0470

For U.S./CAN Toll Free Call 1-800-526-8630

For GMT Office Hours Call +353-1-416-8900

DUBLIN–(BUSINESS WIRE)–The “The Corporate Reputation of Pharma in 2019 – The Patient Perspective – Global Edition – The Views of 1,850 Patient Groups” report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com’s offering.

How did the Industry Perform?

Patient-group attitudes towards the pharma industry as a whole were more positive in 2019 than in any of the previous years this survey has been undertaken. Patient groups rated the pharmaceutical industry 1st for corporate reputation out of nine healthcare sectors (a first for the pharma industry).

• 46% of 2019’s respondent patient groups stated that the pharmaceutical industry had an “Excellent” or “Good” corporate reputation, ranking pharma 1st out of nine healthcare sectors for corporate reputation.

However, patient group attitudes do vary worldwide.

• The pharma industry’s overall corporate reputation was highest in 2019 among patient groups in Greece, Latin-American countries, Turkey, China, and Poland. By contrast, only 13% of the 2019’s respondent patient groups from Ireland described the industry as having an “Excellent” or “Good” corporate reputation.
• The largest improvements in pharma’s corporate reputation, 2018 to 2019, were seen in Greece, Latin-American countries, Portugal, and Canada. By contrast, respondent patient groups from Ireland reported the industry’s corporate reputation to be falling, 2018 to 2019.

2019’s respondent patient groups also stated that the pharma industry’s performance at activities of importance to patients had mostly improved since 2018.

(Read more…)

2019’s respondent patient groups clearly felt that the pharmaceutical industry, despite having made improvements, still has scope to do better, particularly in the areas of:

• Transparency
• Patient Engagement in R&D
• Fair Pricing Policies

Less than one-fifth of 2019’s respondent patient groups thought the pharmaceutical industry “Excellent” or “Good” at transparency (whether transparency in its pricing of products, in the sharing of its clinical data, or in its funding of external stakeholders).

Less than one-fifth of 2019’s respondent patient groups considered the pharmaceutical industry “Excellent” or “Good” at patient engagement in R&D (despite regular calls throughout 2019 by patient organisations and regulators for the further involvement of patients in this core pharma activity).

Only 10% of 2019’s respondent patient groups believed the pharmaceutical industry to be “Excellent” or “Good” at having fair pricing policies.

About the Survey and the Analyses

I. Results of a survey of 1,850 patient groups

• Survey conducted: November 2019 – February 2020.
• Survey conducted in 20 languages: Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Norwegian, Portuguese, Polish, Russian, Spanish, Swedish, Simplified Chinese, Traditional Chinese and Turkish.
• Industry-wide analyses: The pharma industry as a whole assessed at a wide range of activities important to patients and patient groups; its performance at corporate reputation compared with that of other healthcare sectors.
• Company analyses: 48 pharma companies analysed for performance at 12 indicators of corporate reputation by patient groups familiar with the company, and by patient groups that work or partner with the company.

II. Best-practice case studies from eight leading pharma companies

The eight contributing pharmaceutical companies are:

• Boehringer Ingelheim
• Gilead Sciences
• Ipsen
• Lundbeck (US division)
• Merck KGaA/EMD Serono
• Novartis
• Pfizer
• ViiV Healthcare

These eight companies tell their own stories about their patient-centric strategies, and what they were doing in 2019 (and have planned for 2020) to improve their corporate reputation with patients and patient groups.

A note about COVID-19

COVID-19 should have little impact on the results of the 2019 ‘Corporate-Reputation’ study, due to the timing of the survey (November 2019 to February 2020 – largely before the crisis became global). Only the opinions of the 15 respondent China-based patient groups may have been influenced by the epidemic.

However, COVID-19 is already creating greater public awareness of the pharmaceutical industry. On the one hand, the industry’s scientific abilities are being applauded. On the other hand, drug companies have come under pressure to reduce prices during the pandemic. The 2019 ‘Corporate-Reputation’ results can, therefore, serve as a platform to assist pharma in its corporate-reputation strategies, in the context of the COVID-19 crisis and thereafter at a time when the reputation of the pharmaceutical industry is very much in the public eye.

Key Topics Covered

1. Executive summary
2. Patient-group relationships with pharma, 2019
3. Industry-wide findings, 2019
4. Rankings of the 48 pharma companies, 2019 (v. 2018) among patient groups familiar with the companies
5. Rankings of the 48 pharma companies, 2019 (v. 2018) among patient groups that work with the companies
6. Profiles of the 48 companies, 2019 (v. 2018)

Appendices

1. Profiles of respondent patient groups, 2019
2. IMethodology
3. What 8 pharmaceutical companies say about their patient-oriented activities, 2019/2020
   

Tables and Charts

• The key therapy areas of the 2019 respondent patient groups
• The geographic spread of the 2019 respondent patient groups
• Corporate reputation of the pharmaceutical industry, 2011-2019 (percentage of respondent patient groups stating Excellent or Good)
• Corporate reputation of the pharmaceutical industry, 2019-by country (percentage of respondent patient groups stating Excellent or Good) [figure in brackets equals number of respondent patient groups]
• Percentage change in the corporate reputation of the pharmaceutical industry, 2019 v. 2018 – by country(respondent patient groups stating Excellent or Good) [figure in brackets equals number of respondent patient groups]
• Percentage of respondent patient groups stating that the pharmaceutical industry was Excellent or Good at being patient centric, 2019 – by country [figure in brackets equals number of respondent patient groups]
• Percentage of respondent patient groups stating that the pharmaceutical industry was Excellent or Good at ensuring access to medicines, 2019 – by country [figure in brackets equals number of respondent patient groups]
• Percentage of respondent patient groups stating that pharma was Excellent or Good at having fair pricing policies, 2019
• Companies’ respective increases in overall rankings in the Corporate-Reputation’ league table, 2019 v. 2018 – according to respondent patient groups that are familiar, and which work, with the company
• Percentage of respondent patient groups that stated None or They did not know any company that was Best at an activity, 2019
• Overall rankings of individual pharma companies among patient groups familiar with the company, 2019 v. 2018 – ordered high to low
• Companies’ NPS scores, 2019 – according to respondent patient groups that work with the company; ordered high to low
• The rankings of 14 ‘big-pharma’ companies at corporate reputation, 2019 v. 2018 – according to respondent patient groups familiar with the companies
• The rankings of 14 ‘big-pharma’ companies at corporate reputation, 2019 v. 2018 – according to respondent patient groups that work with the companies
• Patient groups: familiarity, and partnerships, with pharma companies, 2019 (according to respondent patient groups)
• The types of working relationships that respondent patient groups have 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 patient groups
• The corporate reputation of the pharmaceutical industry, 2011-2019 – according to respondent patient groups
• The perceived effectiveness of the pharmaceutical industry at carrying out specific activities, 2010 v. 2019 – according to respondent patient groups
• Perceptions of the efficacy of the pharmaceutical industry at various activities of importance to patient groups, 2019 v. previous years – according to respondent patient groups
• Rankings of individual pharma companies, 2019 v. 2018 – according to respondent patient groups familiar with the company
• Rankings of individual pharma companies, 2019 v. 2018 – according to respondent patient groups that work or partner with the company

Profiles of the 48 companies, 2019

Charts and Tables for Each of the 48 Companies:

• Number of respondent patient groups claiming familiarity with the company, 2019.
• Number of respondent patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with the company, 2019.
• Profile of respondent patient groups familiar with the company, 2019: country headquarters; specialties; geographic remit; and types of relationships.
• Company scores among respondent patient groups familiar with the company, and which worked with the company, for each of the 12 indicators of corporate reputation, 2019.
• Percentage of the respondent patient groups that worked with the company, but which also worked with other companies, 2019.
• Overall rankings for the company according to respondent patient groups familiar with the company, 2019 v. 2018.
• Overall rankings for the company according to respondent patient groups that work with the company, 2019 v. 2018.
• Company rankings for each of the 12 indicators according to respondent patient groups familiar, or working, with the company, 2019 v. 2018.
• Overall rankings among respondent patient groups familiar with the company, 2015-2019.
• 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 patient groups familiar with the company, 2019.
• 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 patient groups that work with the company, 2019.
• The company’s Net Promoter Score, 2019.
• The company’s Net Promoter Score, 2017-2019.

Companies Mentioned

• 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
• Ferring
• Gedeon Richter
• Gilead Sciences (including Kite Pharma)
• Grifols
• Grünenthal
• GSK
• Ipsen
• Janssen (Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson)
• LEO Pharma
• Lundbeck
• Menarini
• Merck KGaA/EMD Serono
• Merck & Co (MSD outside Canada and the US)
• Mundipharma
• Novartis
• Novo Nordisk
• Octapharma
• Otsuka
• Pfizer
• Pierre Fabre Laboratories
• Roche (Chugai in Japan; Genentech in the USA)
• Sandoz
• Sanofi
• Servier
• Takeda (including its 2018-2019 acquisition Shire)
• Teva
• UCB
• Vertex
• Vifor
• ViiV Healthcare

For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/2te1jp

Contacts

ResearchAndMarkets.com

Laura Wood, Senior Press Manager

[email protected]
For E.S.T Office Hours Call 1-917-300-0470

For U.S./CAN Toll Free Call 1-800-526-8630

For GMT Office Hours Call +353-1-416-8900