1<!DOCTYPE html>
2
3Anonymous
4/bestp
5/bestp/domrep.nsf
6B88D2049E5F6FDF18525798A006A07CA
8
9
10
11
12
13
140
15
16
17/bestp/domrep.nsf/products/risk-factors-pitfalls-disrupting-msl-effectiveness?opendocument
18
19opendocument
203.88.156.58
21
22
23www.best-in-class.com
24/bestp/domrep.nsf
25DB




Products & Services Medical Affairs Medical Science Liaison

Medical Science Liaison Services Excellence: Emerging Trends and Mitigating Risks

ID: 5180


Features:

11 Info Graphics

14 Data Graphics

100+ Metrics

6 Narratives


Pages/Slides: 34


Published: Pre-2014


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 " Medical Science Liaison Services Excellence: Emerging Trends and Mitigating Risk"


STUDY OVERVIEW

Concerns about compliance and legal limitations are forcing companies to re-examine how they utilize Medical Science Liasons (MSLs). For many companies under a Corporate Integrity Agreement, there is a greater perceived risk over the next few years when it comes to everything from regulatory bodies to changing industry standards.

Best Practices, LLC conducted this study to the provide information on how the roles of MSLs are evolving in the changing pharmaceutical environment and how regulatory concerns are affecting the MSL landscape. This research presents benchmarks around risk factors influencing MSL services in the future, different changes companies are making to MSL policies based on their risk aversion, and the level of support MSLs provide government and advocacy groups. Biopharmaceutical and medical device executives can use this study to determine the best practices for facing the upcoming industry challenges.

Note: Data are presented in two segments: The total benchmark class and a U.S. only segment.


KEY TOPICS

  • Restrictiveness of MSL Interaction
  • Risk Factors Challenging MSL Services
  • Key Pitfalls Disrupting MSL Effectiveness
  • Relationships with Government Affairs and MSL services

SAMPLE KEY METRICS
  • How restrictive are companies now compared to 12-24 months ago in regards to MSL interaction with health care providers
  • How restrictive will companies be in the next 12-24 months
  • Risk that varying scenarios will impact MSL ability to serve KOLs in the next 24 months
  • Current and future risk aversion compared to how likely companies will be to make changes to MSL policies going forward
  • Pitfalls faced that disrupt or threaten MSLs effectiveness in serving KOLs
  • Structures that work best to provide MSL services in coordination with Government Affairs services
  • Frequency with which MSLs support policy and advocacy group
  • Expected changes that will most effect MSLs abilities to access and serve next 12-24 months

SAMPLE KEY FINDING
  • Corporate Integrity Agreements and Lawsuits Viewed With Minimal Concern: Only 25% of companies see a “high risk” that a CIA or lawsuit will discourage companies from providing services to KOLs and attempting to collaborate with them in the next two years.
  • Restrictions on MSL Interactions with Physicians Stabilizing: After many companies became more restrictive in the past two years (48% reported doing so), only 38% expect greater restriction on MSL activities with doctors in the next two years. Only 39% of companies with existing CIAs said they expect restrictions to tighten in the next two years.

METHODOLOGY
Thirty-five research Pharmaceutical and Medical Device executives from 30 companies participated in this project. The benchmark class, of global pharmaceutical and medical device companies, has been segmented into two classes based on geographic coverage (Total Benchmark and U.S. focus).

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


Companies Profiled:
Advanced Biohealing; Allergan; Amylin; AstraZeneca; Bayer; Boehringer Ingelheim; Boston Scientific; Cephalon; EndoPharma; Eisai; Gambro; G.E. Healthcare; Genetech; GlaxoSmithKline; Ironwood Pharma; Kadmon Pharma; Laboratorios Esteve; Lantheus Medical Imaging; Metronic; Merck Sharp and Dohme; Novartis; Novo Nordisk; Onyx Pharma; Pfizer; QLT; Quidel; Shire; Takeda; Theravance; UCB


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.