CORPORATE REPUTATION OF PHARMA-THE PATIENT PERSPECTIVE, JANUARY 14 2013

Increasing numbers of pharmaceutical companies are seeking to redefine their relationships with patients, recasting their companies as more patient-centric. PatientView is therefore pleased to ANNOUNCE THE RELEASE of the latest version of its annual review .

  • A global survey, conducted mid-November to mid-December 2012, exploring the views of 600 international, national, and regional patient groups from 56 countries (72% from Europe) and differing specialties 
  • Patient group feedback on the corporate reputation of the pharma industry during 2012.
  • Patient group feedback provides rankings of 29 leading pharma companies for six key indicators that influence corporate reputation: patient-centredness; patient information; patient safety; useful products; transparency; and integrity.
  • Results for 2012 are compared with those of 2011.

This independent study, funded by PatientView, represents 600 patient groups’ latest impressions on the corporate reputation of 29 individual pharma companies and of the pharma industry as a whole. Results for 2012 are compared with 2011. For the purposes of this report, the phrase ‘corporate reputation’ is defined as the extent to which pharma companies are meeting the expectations of patients and patient groups. The 29 companies examined are:

l Abbott l Allergan l Amgen l AstraZeneca l Baxter International l Bayer l Biogen Idec l Boehringer Ingelheim l Bristol-Myers Squibb l Celgene l Eli Lilly (Lilly) l Gilead Sciences l GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) l Janssen l Lundbeck l Menarini l Merck & Co (the US company) l Merck Group (the German company) l Novartis l Novo Nordisk l Pfizer l Roche l Sanofi l Servier l Shire l Stada Arzneimittel l Takeda lTeva lUCB

 

Key findings industry-wide; reputation of pharma fell in 2012

The overall reputation of pharma declined in 2012. Only 34% of the 600 patient groups responding to the 2012 survey state that multinational pharma companies had an “Excellent” or “Good” reputation during 2012. The equivalent figure from the 500 patient groups responding to the 2011 survey was 42%. 40% of the 600 respondent patient groups state that the reputation of the pharma industry had declined during 2012. As many as 50% of the 600 respondent patient groups say that industry had a “Poor” record in 2012 for having fair pricing policies.48% of the 600 respondent patient groups say that industry had a “Poor” record in 2012 for being transparent.When the 2012 results are compared with those of 2011, the sharpest falls in pharma performance are for the following:

              Managing adverse news about product—a 29% fall between 2011 and 2012.

              Having ethical marketing practices—a 23% fall between 2011 and 2012.

              Having a good relationship with the media—a 19% fall, 2011-2012.

 

Top pharma performers for 2012

Lundbeck takes 1st place overall

Top_performers

Rankings for each of the six indicators

The table below shows the top rankings for each of the six indicators. Company performance can vary significantly, according to the strengths and weaknesses of the company (as seen from a patient perspective).

Six_indicators

For a copy of the press  release see: http://bit.ly/PHARMA-REP-2013 

 

The sample pages of the above report provide an idea of its content and scope

The report ‘”The Corporate Reputation of Pharma— – the Patient Perspective”‘, PatientView Quarterly, January 2013 is available for purchase

For details about pricing, and how to get hold of the report

please send you request to:

report@patient-view.com

Or contact Alexandra Wyke or Clive Nead on:

0044-(0)1547-520-965

ENDORSEMENTS 

“Thank you again for the work that you do.  Your work is definitely helping us to become a better partner with patient advocacy groups.-Thomas Crosby, JD, Director, Stakeholder Relations & Strategy, Global Advocacy & Professional Relations, Eli Lilly & Company