Pharmiweb ChannelsAll | PharmaCo | Clinical Research | R&D/BioTech | Sales/Mktg | Healthcare | Recruitment | Pharmacy | Medical Comms

Pharmiweb.com RSS Feed Pharmiweb.com RSS Feeds

Advertising

Press Release

Corporate Reputation of Pharma Companies, 2016-2017: Perspective of 164 US Patient Groups - Research and Markets

Research and Markets
Posted on: 14 Aug 17

The "The Corporate Reputation of Pharma Companies, 2016: from the Perspective of 164 US Patient Groups 4th Edition" report has been added to Research and Markets' offering.

These results are derived from a global review of pharma's corporate reputation (conducted November 2016 to early-February 2017).

The results form the opinions of 164 US patient groups: 36 specialised in cancer; 22 in rare diseases; 16 in Parkinson's; 9 in mental health; and other specialties.

30 pharma companies are included in this 2016 US analysis:

  • AbbVie
  • Allergan
  • Amgen
  • Astellas Pharma
  • AstraZeneca
  • Bayer
  • Biogen
  • Boehringer Ingelheim
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb
  • Celgene
  • Eisai
  • Eli Lilly (Lilly)
  • Gilead
  • GSK
  • Janssen
  • Lundbeck
  • Merck & Co
  • Merck KGaA
  • Mylan
  • Novartis
  • Novo Nordisk
  • Pfizer
  • Roche
  • Sandoz
  • Sanofi
  • Shire
  • Takeda
  • Teva
  • UCB
  • Valeant

The 30 companies were chosen because a minimum of 17 US patient groups declared familiarity with each one.

In response to a survey of pharmaceutical companies, Eisai provided information on its patient centricity and relations with patient-advocacy groups during 2016-2017 in the USA.

THE QUESTIONNAIRE

Industry-wide questions:

  • 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 various activities of relevance to patients and patient groups.

7 indicators show the corporate reputation of individual pharma companies:

  1. Patient centricity.
  2. Information for patients.
  3. Patient safety.
  4. Usefulness of products.
  5. Transparency.
  6. Integrity.
  7. Patient-group relationships (new for 2016).

INDUSTRY-WIDE FINDINGS

  • In 2016, only 29.2% of US patient groups thought that the pharma industry had an Excellent or Good corporate reputation (compared with 38% of patient groups worldwide).
  • The 2016 result was the most negative rating from US patient groups since 2013.
  • US patient groups ranked the pharma industry 6th in 2016 among eight healthcare-industry sectors for having an Excellent or Good corporate reputation. By contrast, patient groups from all geographic areas ranked pharma 5th in 2016.
  • US patient groups were, however, more positive about the industry's levels of innovation, and about its ability to provide high-quality information, provide access to clinical trials, work in partnership with patient groups and be philanthropic (when compared with patient organisations from 19 other geographic areas).
  • However, the pharmaceutical industry was marked down by US patient groups for many of its other activitiesmost notably, for the ability of the pharma industry to provide services outside its business remit ('beyond the pill'), and for its ability to price its products fairly. Just 7% of the 164 US patient groups called pharma Excellent or Good at this latter activity in 2016. Only patient groups from Hungary, New Zealand, Germany, Ireland, and the Netherlands graded pharma lower on fair pricing.

PHARMA COMPANIES and US PATIENT GROUPS

  • The company with which US patient groups were most familiar in 2016 was Pfizer (115 of the 164 respondent US patient groups were familiar with the company), followed by Merck & Co (102), and Novartis (93).

INDIVIDUAL COMPANY FINDINGS - USA

  • Only three of the pharma companies ranked in the top ten for corporate reputation by US patient groups in 2016 were headquartered in the USA: AbbVie (which ranked 3rd); Pfizer (7th); and Gilead (8th).
  • Denmark-headquartered Lundbeck ranked overall 1st in 2016 for corporate reputation by the respondent US patient groups familiar with the company (the same ranking for Lundbeck as in 2015).
  • Lundbeck also ranked 1st in 2016 for all seven indicators of corporate reputation.
  • Belgium-headquartered UCB came 2nd overall; Japan-headquartered Eisai, 4th; Ireland-headquartered Shire, 5th; and Switzerland-headquartered Novartis, 6th. Switzerland-headquartered Roche, and Denmark-headquartered Novo Nordisk, were 9th and 10th respectively.

HIGHS and LOWS - USA

  • If the US corporate-reputation results for 2016 (30 pharma companies analysed) are compared with those of 2015 (28 pharma companies analysed) using a standardised indexthe Patient Corporate Reputation Index (PCRI) findings show the biggest jumps up the US rankings were for:
  • Roche saw the biggest leap up the US rankings over the two years. In 2015, the company ranked only 22nd for corporate reputation out of 28 companies; in 2016, it ranked 9th out of 30 companies.
  • Shire, too, jumped up the US rankings between the two yearsfrom 18th out of 28 companies in 2015, to 5th out of 30 companies in 2016.
  • Amgen jumped from 24th out of 28 companies in 2015, to 13th out of 30 companies in 2016.
  • The results may be, in part, due to an anomaly in the survey methodology between the two years (164 US patient groups answered the survey in 2016, whereas, in 2015, 106 did). Nonetheless, this anomaly cannot provide the complete explanation for differences in rankings between the two years.

For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/cd6zp6/the_corporate

View source version on businesswire.com: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20170814005644/en/

Business Wire
www.businesswire.com

Last updated on: 14/08/2017

Advertising
Site Map | Privacy & Security | Cookies | Terms and Conditions

PharmiWeb.com is Europe's leading industry-sponsored portal for the Pharmaceutical sector, providing the latest jobs, news, features and events listings.
The information provided on PharmiWeb.com is designed to support, not replace, the relationship that exists between a patient/site visitor and his/her physician.