1<!DOCTYPE html>
2
3Anonymous
4/bestp
5/bestp/domrep.nsf
6B58FCC6E8CAA5D2C85258470001E6974
8
9
10
11
12
13
140
15
16
17/bestp/domrep.nsf/products/db-patient-advocacy-2020-optimizing-partnerships-improve-access-boost-patient-voice-united-states?opendocument
18
19opendocument
2018.205.176.85
21
22
23www.best-in-class.com
24/bestp/domrep.nsf
25DB




Products & Services Marketing Management Patient Advocacy

Patient Advocacy 2020: Optimizing Advocacy Partnerships to Improve Access and Boost Patient Voice in the United States

ID: 5577


Features:

17 Info Graphics

13 Data Graphics

240+ Metrics

8 Narratives


Pages/Slides: 39


Published: 2019


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 “Patient Advocacy 2020: Optimizing Advocacy Partnerships to Improve Access and Boost Patient Voice in the United States”

STUDY OVERVIEW

Pharmaceutical organizations are increasingly relying on their relationships with patient advocacy groups to educate and inform patients about treatment options. Strong relationships with advocacy groups are particularly vital when educating the public on socially-sensitive conditions and treatment options.

Best Practices, LLC conducted this benchmarking research to pinpoint effective practices in patient advocacy group collaboration and relationship management in the United States. This study delivers benchmarks around performance measurement, collaboration timing and grants. Also, there are qualitative insights on managing advocacy relationships within controversial disease states.

KEY TOPICS
  • Understanding the advocacy landscape
  • Effective practices for working with potentially hostile patient advocacy groups
  • Measuring effectiveness
  • Advocacy lessons learned from socially sensitive or stigmatized disease areas

KEY METRICS
  • Which of the listed metrics do you think are effective for measuring the success of your patient advocacy activities and relationships?
  • Please rate the effectiveness of various approaches designed to help the company, therapeutic areas, and individual brand teams coordinate relationships with patient advocacy groups
  • Please rate the effectiveness of the listed methods for prioritizing objectives when a patient advocacy group maintains relationships with multiple brands or therapeutic areas
  • Based on your experiences, rate the importance of patient advocacy collaborations at different lifecycle stages
  • Which of the listed forms of education, program support, and grants/sponsorships would you consider most important during each of four key lifecycle stages?
  • Which approaches work best to deploy advocacy grants/sponsorships for early-stage support with advocacy groups?
  • What considerations are most critical when managing collaboration with an advocacy group regarding therapies that may trigger controversy or social stigma?
  • What approaches are most effective in educating the market on conditions that may be highly controversial or have a social stigma?
  • Were there any patient advocacy, religious or other special interest groups that had a much greater impact than expected on a therapy with which you were involved?
  • What strategy or tactics do you find most effective in minimizing opposition from patient advocacy or other special interest groups against a therapy that could be considered controversial?


SAMPLE KEY FINDINGS
  • Assessing the best tools to manage advocacy relationships: Designating single relationship owner and transparency & authenticity is the key to effectively coordinating relationships with patient advocacy groups, according to more than 60% of the participants. Managing relationships with advocacy groups also benefits from clear roles and responsibilities.

METHODOLOGY

Best Practices, LLC engaged 48 leaders supporting patient advocacy initiatives at 43 biopharmaceutical companies in the United States through a benchmarking survey.


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


Companies Profiled:
Acceleron Pharma; Agendia; Alnylam Pharmaceuticals; Amicus Therapeutics; ApotheCom; Astellas; AveXis; AVROBIO; Baldwin Area Medical Center; Bayer; Biogen; Blue Earth Diagnostics; Boehringer Ingelheim; CRISPR Therapeutics; Daiichi Sankyo; Dermira; Forum Pharmaceuticals; Grifols; GlaxoSmithKline ; Genzyme; Horizon Pharma; Incyte; Ipsen; Janssen; Johnson & Johnson; Lexicon Pharmaceuticals; Mallinckrodt; Milestone Pharmaceuticals; Natera; Novartis; Novo Nordisk; OTSUKA; Pfizer; Pharmacyclics; Reata Pharmaceuticals; Retrophin; Sage Therapeutics; Spark Therapeutics; Theravance; Ultragenyx; Wave Life Sciences; Zimmer Biomet; Zogenix

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.