1<!DOCTYPE html>
2
3Anonymous
4/bestp
5/bestp/domrep.nsf
6F17F8D324B44D05365258029004440F6
8
9
10
11
12
13
140
15
16
17/bestp/domrep.nsf/products/db-patient-advocacy-optimizing-functional-structure-managing-relationships?opendocument
18
19opendocument
203.93.75.30
21
22
23www.best-in-class.com
24/bestp/domrep.nsf
25DB




Products & Services Medical Affairs Patient Advocacy

Patient Advocacy Excellence: Optimizing Functional Structure & Managing Advocacy Relationships

ID: 5427


Features:

24 Info Graphics

19 Data Graphics

180+ Metrics

18 Narratives

11 Best Practices


Pages/Slides: 54


Published: 2016


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 Excellence: Optimizing Functional Structure & Managing Advocacy Relationships

STUDY OVERVIEW

Patient advocacy groups are an important part of educating the marketplace on the latest medicines and treatments. Collaborating with advocacy groups is particularly vital for educating the public on socially-sensitive conditions and treatment options. Consequently, successful biopharmaceutical organizations seek better ways to collaborate and manage relationships with key patient and professional advocacy groups.

Best Practices, LLC undertook this benchmarking research to identify effective practices in patient advocacy group collaboration and relationship management. This study examines winning strategies, best practices, preferred structures, resource levels, responsibilities, collaboration approaches and lessons learned in patient advocacy collaboration.

KEY TOPICS

  • Patient Advocacy Functional Structure
  • Patient Advocacy Partner Coordination & Effectiveness
  • Developing & Optimizing Patient Advocacy Partnerships
  • Managing Relationships Within Controversial Disease States

KEY METRICS
  • Structure of Patient Advocacy Function within Participating Companies & its Efficacy
  • Process Used to Communicate with External Advocacy Groups
  • Number of FTEs Dedicated to Patient Advocacy Activities
  • Number of Advocacy Groups Supported by Participating Companies
  • Effective Metrics for Measuring the Success of Patient Advocacy Activities and Relationships
  • Effective Approaches Used to Coordinate Relationships with Advocacy Groups
  • Importance of Advocacy Collaborations at Different Lifecycle Stages
  • Education, Support Programs, and Grants/Sponsorships Used During Key Lifecycle Stages
  • Effective Approaches to Seed an Early Relationship with Patient Advocacy Groups
  • Critical Collaboration Issues when Working with Advocacy Groups on Potentially Controversial Therapies
  • Effective Approaches in Educating the Market on Conditions that May be Highly Controversial or Have a Social Stigma
  • Impact of Special Interest Groups
  • Most Effective Strategy or Tactics in Minimizing Opposition from Patient Advocacy or Other Special Interest Groups against a Therapy that could be Considered Controversial

SAMPLE KEY FINDINGS
  • Structuring High Performance Bio-Pharma Advocacy Groups: Companies participating in this study did not favor one type of organizational structure for their patient advocacy groups. The structural approach of participants’ advocacy organizations ranged between decentralized therapeutic area-focused groups, centralized groups and those with a hybrid structure. More than half of the companies consider their advocacy group structure effective. More than half of the companies who consider their structure effective use a centralized approach. Moreover, of the 11 companies that consider their structure ineffective, 45% would like to adopt a centralized structure to improve their operations.

METHODOLOGY

Best Practices, LLC engaged 24 leaders from 21 top bio-pharmaceutical companies through a benchmarking survey. In-depth interviews were conducted to gather more detailed information pertinent to this study. More than 50% of participants are at the director/ senior director level. More than 70% of participants are from the United States.


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


Companies Profiled:
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals; Astellas; Baldwin Area Medical Center; Bayer; Boehringer Ingelheim; Covance; Forum Pharmaceuticals; Genzyme; Horizon Pharma; Johnson & Johnson; Lundbeck; Mallinckrodt; Natera; Novartis; Parkway Pantai; Pfizer; Pharmacyclics; Spark Therapeutics; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd; UCB Pharma; 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.