1<!DOCTYPE html>
2
3Anonymous
4/bestp
5/bestp/domrep.nsf
6BDF295CEDA76364700258A990044B960
8
9
10
11
12
13
140
15
16
17/bestp/domrep.nsf/products/field-medical-excellence-benchmark-top-12-global-markets-establishing-standards-high-performance-impact?opendocument
18
19opendocument
2044.192.48.196
21
22
23www.best-in-class.com
24/bestp/domrep.nsf
25BMR




» Products & Services » » Medical Affairs » Field Medical Excellence

Field Medical Excellence Benchmark of Top 12 Global Markets: Establishing Standards for High Performance & Impact

ID: POP-371


Features:

12 Info Graphics

111 Data Graphics

1860+ Metrics

40 Narratives


Pages: 136


Published: 2024


Delivery Format: Shipped


 

License Options:


Buy Now

 

919-403-0251

  • STUDY OVERVIEW
  • BENCHMARK CLASS
  • STUDY SNAPSHOT
  • KEY FINDINGS
  • VIEW TOC AND LIST OF EXHIBITS
Field medical leaders face many challenges in providing guidance and best-in-class support to all local teams as they expand their portfolios globally. As they seek to establish “Global Standards for Field Performance,” global field medical leadership teams will benefit from understanding key performance indicators, competitor frameworks, benchmarks for effective field coverage, and effective strategies for advising local teams.

Best Practices, LLC designed this benchmarking research to help Global Field Medical Excellence leaders develop a framework to drive consistency and high impact in five major regions across the world, including North America, EU, APAC, LATAM, and MENA. Leveraging a robust dataset segmented at regional, country, and therapeutic area levels, our report serves as an invaluable resource for field medical leaders. It provides strategic insights to enhance KOL interactions, evaluate MSL performance metrics, and strategically align staffing footprints, thus offering a roadmap for optimizing field medical operations on a global scale.

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


Companies Profiled:
Abbott; AbbVie; Alexion Pharmaceuticals; Alkermes; Astellas; AstraZeneca; Bayer; BioMarin; Boehringer Ingelheim; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Celgene; Chiesi; Clovis Oncology; CSL Behring; Curis; Daiichi Sankyo; Dermavant Sciences; Dompé; Eisai; Eurofarma; Exact Sciences; Galapagos; GE Healthcare; Genentech; Gilead Sciences; GlaxoSmithKline ; Grünenthal; Horizon Therapeutics; Ipsen; Janssen; Jazz Pharmaceuticals; Kyowa Kirin; Lundbeck; Merck; Merck KGaA; Merus; Novartis; Novo Nordisk; OM Pharma; Orchard Therapeutics; Pfizer; Radius Health; Inc.; Sanofi; Seres Therapeutics; Servier; Sunovion; Supernus; Takeda Pharmaceuticals; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd; UCB Pharma; Ultragenyx; Vertex Pharmaceuticals

Study Snapshot

Best Practices, LLC gathered performance data and insights from Field Medical executives from throughout the biopharma industry and around the world through a custom benchmark survey. Data from this study was then segmented at the region, country, and therapeutic area level.

Best Practices, LLC also leveraged its propriety Field Medical Excellence database to provide additional benchmarks for maximal alignment with varied portfolio considerations.

The final study draws on 448 survey responses from a total benchmark class of 100+ biopharma manufacturers.

Key topics covered in this report include:

  • Effective Field Performance Metrics
  • Building a Global Field Medical Excellence Framework
  • Target and Engagement Levels of KOLs
  • Average MSL Time Spent in KOL Interactions and on Internal Activities
  • Field Medical Staffing Footprint
  • Key Lessons Learned for Measuring MSL Impact

Key Findings

Select key insights uncovered from this report are noted below. Detailed findings are available in the full report.

  • Average meeting duration time has dropped almost everywhere (from ~40 minutes to low 30s)
    • “Effective virtual meetings do not require as much small talk as F2F”

  • Top-rated KPIs used in most regions: Scientific concepts discussed, actionable insights collected, and medical objectives achieved
    • While highest-rated, these are only used in 40-60% organizations
    • More impact metrics should be sought, in consultation with local teams and regulations
Table of Contents

Sr. No.
Topic
Slide No.
I.
Executive SummaryPg. 3-9
II.
Laying the Foundation for Global Field Medical Performance Standards & ExpectationsPg. 10-19
III.
North America: Region-level benchmarksPg. 20-36
Country-level benchmarksPg. 37-48
IV.
Europe: Region-level benchmarksPg. 49-64
Country-level benchmarksPg. 65-77
V.
APAC: Region-level benchmarksPg. 78-93
Country-level benchmarksPg. 94-105
VI.
LATAM: Region-level benchmarksPg. 106-120
VII.
MENA: Region-level dataPg. 121-135
VIII.
About Best Practices, LLCPg. 136

    List of Charts & Exhibits

    I. Executive Summary

    • Business objectives and research methodology used
    • Regions and therapeutic areas examined in this benchmark study
    • Participating benchmark companies
    • Global benchmarking findings: Quick takeaways and recommendations
    • Global benchmarking findings: Summary of regional data

    II. Laying the Foundation for Global Field Medical Performance Standards & Expectations

    • Most effective and utilized field metrics for assessing and demonstrating the value of MSLs
    • Defining “monthly interactions”
    • Distinguishing an "actionable" insight from other kinds of insights
    • Definitions of "actionable insights" from the field
    • Crafting a global framework for excellence in field medical engagement
    • Metrics to assess MSL performance
    • Lessons learned around MSL time allocation in field and on external activities

    III. North America

    A. Region-level benchmarks

    • Average number of tiered vs. non-tiered KOLs per MSL in North America
    • Monthly KOL and F2F interactions in North America
    • MSL’s average time spent in each thought leader interaction in North America
    • Weighting criteria for various interaction types on the MSL scorecard – North America
    • Optimal and widely utilized field metrics for assessing and showcasing MSL impact in North America
    • Metrics for engaging non-tiered KOLs in North America
    • Average MSL time in the field (days per year) in North America
    • Percentage of MSL time spent on external, internal and logistics activities in North America
    • Weekly MSL time allocation on each activity stream in North America
    • MSL time in the field vs. on external activities – North America
    • Percentage of overall targets that can be classified as KOLs, HCPs, payers, or other external stakeholders in North America
    • North America field medical staffing footprint
    • Span of control: Number of MSLs per MSL manager in North America
    • Voices from the field: Key lessons learned for measuring MSL impact in North America

    B. Country-level benchmarks

    • Average number of tiered vs. non-tiered KOLs per MSL in United States and Canada
    • Monthly KOL and F2F interactions in United States and Canada
    • MSL’s average time spent in each thought leader interaction in United States and Canada
    • Weighting criteria for various interaction types on the MSL scorecard – United States and Canada
    • Metrics for engaging non-tiered KOLs in United States and Canada
    • Average MSL time in the field (days per year) in United States and Canada
    • Percentage of MSL time spent on external, internal and logistics activities in United States and Canada
    • Weekly MSL time allocation on each activity stream in United States and Canada
    • Percentage of overall targets that can be classified as KOLs, HCPs, payers or other external stakeholders in United States and Canada
    • Average field medical team size – United States and Canada
    • Span of control: Number of MSLs per MSL manager in United States and Canada

    IV. Europe:

    A. Region-level benchmarks

    • Average total panel size supported by an individual MSL in Europe
    • Average number of monthly KOL/HCP and F2F meetings in Europe
    • MSL’s average time spent per thought leader interaction in Europe
    • Value assigned to each interaction type on the MSL scorecard – Europe
    • Key metrics for evaluating and demonstrating the value of MSLs in Europe
    • Engagement metrics for non-tiered KOLs in Europe
    • Average annual field presence of MSLs in Europe
    • Time spent by MSLs on external, internal and logistics activities in Europe
    • Weekly MSL time allocation across activity streams in Europe
    • MSL engagement mix in Europe
    • Average number of field staff members in Europe
    • Span of control: MSLs per MSL manager in Europe
    • Voices from the field: Key lessons learned for measuring MSL impact in Europe

    B. Country-level benchmarks

    • Average number of tiered vs. non-tiered KOLs per MSL in UK, France, Italy, Spain, Germany, and Mid-sized EU market (composite response)
    • Monthly KOL and F2F interactions in UK, France, Italy, Spain, Germany, and Mid-sized EU market (composite response)
    • MSL’s average time spent in each thought leader interaction in UK, France, Italy, Spain, Germany, and Mid-sized EU market (composite response)
    • Weighting criteria for various interaction types on the MSL scorecard – UK, France, Italy, Spain, Germany, and Mid-sized EU market (composite response)
    • Metrics for engaging non-tiered KOLs in UK, France, Italy, Spain, Germany, and Mid-sized EU market (composite response)
    • Average MSL time in the field (days per year) in UK, France, Italy, Spain, Germany, and Mid-sized EU market (composite response)
    • Percentage of MSL time spent on external, internal and logistics activities in UK, France, Italy, Spain, Germany, and Mid-sized EU market (composite response)
    • Weekly MSL time allocation on each activity stream in UK, France, Italy, Spain, Germany, and Mid-sized EU market (composite response)
    • Percentage of overall targets that can be classified as KOLs, HCPs, payers or other external stakeholders in UK, France, Italy, Spain, Germany, and Mid-sized EU market (composite response)
    • Average field medical team size – UK, France, Italy, Spain, Germany, and Mid-sized EU market (composite response)
    • Span of control: Number of MSLs per MSL manager in UK, France, Italy, Spain, Germany, and Mid-sized EU market (composite response)

    V. APAC

    A. Region-level benchmarks

    • Average number of tiered vs. non-tiered KOLs per MSL in APAC region
    • Monthly KOL and F2F interactions in APAC region
    • MSL’s average time spent in each thought leader interaction in APAC region
    • Weighting criteria for various interaction types on the MSL scorecard – APAC region
    • Optimal and widely utilized field metrics for assessing and showcasing MSL impact in APAC region
    • Metrics for engaging non-tiered KOLs in APAC region
    • Average MSL time in the field (days per year) in APAC region
    • Percentage of MSL time spent on external, internal and logistics activities in APAC region
    • Weekly MSL time allocation on each activity stream in APAC region
    • Percentage of overall targets that can be classified as KOLs, HCPs, payers, or other external stakeholders in APAC region
    • APAC region field medical staffing footprint
    • Span of control: Number of MSLs per MSL manager in APAC region
    • Voices from the field: Key lessons learned for measuring MSL impact in APAC region

    B. Country-level benchmarks

    • Average total panel size supported by an individual MSL in Australia, China, and Japan
    • Average number of monthly KOL/HCP and F2F meetings in Australia, China, and Japan
    • MSL’s average time spent per thought leader interaction in Australia, China, and Japan
    • Value assigned to each interaction type on the MSL scorecard – Australia, China, and Japan
    • Engagement metrics for non-tiered KOLs in Australia, China, and Japan
    • Average annual field presence of MSLs in Australia, China, and Japan
    • Time spent by MSLs on external, internal and logistics activities in Australia, China, and Japan
    • Weekly MSL time allocation across activity streams in Australia, China, and Japan
    • MSL engagement mix in Australia, China, and Japan
    • Average number of field staff members in Australia, China, and Japan
    • Span of control: MSLs per MSL manager in Australia, China, and Japan

    VI. LATAM: Region-level benchmarks

    • Average number of tiered vs. non-tiered KOLs per MSL in LATAM region
    • Monthly KOL and F2F interactions in LATAM region
    • MSL’s average time spent in each thought leader interaction in LATAM region
    • Weighting criteria for various interaction types on the MSL scorecard – LATAM region
    • Optimal and widely utilized field metrics for assessing and showcasing MSL impact in LATAM region
    • Metrics for engaging non-tiered KOLs in LATAM region
    • Average MSL time in the field (days per year) in LATAM region
    • Percentage of MSL time spent on external, internal and logistics activities in LATAM region
    • Weekly MSL time allocation on each activity stream in LATAM region
    • Percentage of overall targets that can be classified as KOLs, HCPs, payers, or other external stakeholders in LATAM region
    • LATAM region field medical staffing footprint
    • Span of control: Number of MSLs per MSL manager in LATAM region

    VII. MENA: Region-level data

    • Average total panel size supported by an individual MSL in MENA region
    • Average number of monthly KOL/HCP and F2F meetings in MENA region
    • MSL’s average time spent per thought leader interaction in MENA region
    • Value assigned to each interaction type on the MSL scorecard – MENA region
    • Key metrics for evaluating and demonstrating the value of MSLs in MENA region
    • Engagement metrics for non-tiered KOLs in MENA region
    • Average annual field presence of MSLs in MENA region
    • Time spent by MSLs on external, internal and logistics activities in MENA region
    • Weekly MSL time allocation across activity streams in MENA region
    • MSL engagement mix in MENA region
    • Average number of field staff members in MENA region
    • Span of control: MSLs per MSL manager in MENA region