1<!DOCTYPE html>
2
3Anonymous
4/bestp
5/bestp/domrep.nsf
679513F157AD66897852585070060186D
8
9
10
11
12
13
140
15
16
17/bestp/domrep.nsf/products/79513F157AD66897852585070060186D?opendocument
18
19opendocument
2054.236.35.159
21
22
23www.best-in-class.com
24/bestp/domrep.nsf
25DB




» Products & Services » » Medical Affairs » Health Outcomes

Leveraging Outcomes Data: Technology, Training and Staffing for Health Economics & Outcomes Research

ID: 5601


Features:

10 Info Graphics

21 Data Graphics

170 Metrics


Pages/Slides: 39


Published: 2020


Delivery Format: Online PDF Document


 

License Options:
close

Single User: Authorizes use by the person who places the order or for whom the order was placed.

Sitewide: Authorizes use of the report for a geographic site. All people at site can view the report for a year and copies can be printed.

Corporate: Authorizes use for the entire company for a year and copies can be printed. No limitations for usage inside the company.




Buy Now

 


  • STUDY OVERVIEW
  • BENCHMARK CLASS
  • SPECIAL OFFER
Non-members: Click here to review a complimentary excerpt from "Leveraging Outcomes Data: Technology, Training and Staffing for Health Economics & Outcomes Research"

STUDY OVERVIEW

Demonstrating a drug’s value in real-world settings will maximize a pharmaceutical organization's business and clinical success. The Health Economics Outcomes Research function is a key player in generating value-oriented data, but it needs support via technology, training and staff to effectively generate and utilize health outcomes data.

This study examines the different technologies/platforms and their effectiveness in communicating outcomes information and how organizations approach the issue of training for the HEOR function. The study also highlights HEOR staffing levels as well as where this critical function sits within organizations. The last chapter includes respondents' lessons learned, success stories and pitfalls they have encountered.

Segmentation based on two areas: Geographic responsibility and Medical Affairs vs. Market Access functions

KEY TOPICS

  • Executive Summary: Methodology, Participants, & Key Findings
  • Technology and Tools
  • Training and KPIs Measurement
  • HEOR Staffing and Leadership
  • Lessons Learned, Success Factors and Pitfalls

KEY METRICS

Technology and Tools

  • Effective technologies for field communication
  • Highly effective technologies for field communication – Global vs. U.S.; Market Access vs. Medical Affairs
  • Frequency of technology update
  • Frequency of updating effective technologies to enable field communication tools
  • Tools used by HEOR group to showcase value/ communicate with payers

Training and KPIs Measurement
  • Effective training & development programs for HEOR groups
  • Frequency of training provided to Health Outcomes groups
  • Most effective KPIs and metrics to measure the success of real world data program
  • KPIs measured for successful HEOR program – Market Access vs. Medical Affairs; Global vs. U.S.

HEOR Staffing and Leadership
  • Number of field staff that work in the HEOR organization and number of field-based staff dedicated to HEOR structure
  • Number of field staff that work in the HEOR organization and number of field-based staff dedicated to HEOR structure – Global vs. U.S.; Market Access vs. Medical Affairs
  • Leadership level of the HEOR group - Global vs. U.S.; Market Access vs. Medical Affairs

Lessons Learned, Success Factors and Pitfalls
  • Top advantages to pursuing HEOR planning earlier in the R&D cycle
  • Top success factors for HEOR in developing and maintaining strong capabilities for work with payer groups
  • Top most difficult challenges or pitfalls for HEOR in developing and maintaining strong capabilities for work with payer groups
SAMPLE KEY FINDINGS
  • KPIs: Measure impact, not just activity, through Key Performance Indicators to cover complete development and lifecycle of product
METHODOLOGY

Fifty-four medical leaders from 40 top life-science companies were engaged through a benchmarking survey.

Industries Profiled:
Pharmaceutical; Health Care; Biotech; Biopharmaceutical; Clinical Research; Laboratories; Manufacturing; Consumer Products; Diagnostic; Medical Device; Communications


Companies Profiled:
AbbVie; Astellas; Merck Serono; Novartis; Sanofi; Boehringer Ingelheim; Eisai; Pfizer; Merck Sharp & Dohme; Bayer; Lundbeck; CSL Behring; Ipsen; Novo Nordisk; Takeda Pharmaceuticals; Alkem; Smith & Nephew; Galderma; Seqirus; Vifor Pharma; Daiichi Sankyo; Brii Biosciences; Foundation Medicine; Seattle Genetics; La Jolla Pharmaceutical; Alexion Pharmaceuticals; Sun Pharmaceutical; Grünenthal; BioCryst Pharmaceuticals; Harmony Biosciences; BioMarin; Luminex Corporation; Dova Pharmaceuticals; Karyopharm Therapeutics; Paratek Pharmaceuticals; Pharming; Bioventus; Nucleus Global; Greenwich Biosciences; Pacira Biosciences

If you purchase Best Practice Database document(s), you will have 30 days from the date of purchase to apply some or all of the cost of the document(s) toward the cost of a Full Access Individual, Pharma, Group or University Membership. Write us at DatabaseTeam@bestpracticesllc.com or call David Guinn at 919-767-9179 if you have any questions.