1<!DOCTYPE html>
2
3Anonymous
4/bestp
5/bestp/domrep.nsf
6967236ABAD40D68685257AD7005C1599
8
9
10
11
12
13
140
15
16
17/bestp/domrep.nsf/products/structure-manage-medical-affairs-organizations-best-practices?opendocument
18
19opendocument
20107.23.176.162
21
22
23www.best-in-class.com
24/bestp/domrep.nsf
25DB




Products & Services Medical Affairs Medical Affairs Excellence

Building Best-in-Class Capabilities for Medical Affairs: Structure, Scope & Leadership

ID: 5231


Features:

12 Info Graphics

23 Data Graphics

175+ Metrics

6 Narratives

3 Best Practices


Pages/Slides: 40


Published: Pre-2013


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 "Building Best-in-Class Capabilities for Medical Affairs: Structure, Scope & Leadership"

STUDY OVERVIEW

Recent regulatory changes have pushed Medical Affairs to the forefront of many organizations’ priority list. Growing companies recognize that a robust Medical Affairs function can help them envisage and address challenges in clinical development, market education, and regulatory compliance. Certainly, Medical Affairs leaders are required to evaluate and improve effectiveness to create high-impact function that drives business value.

This Best Practices, LLC study explores how U.S. and global biopharmaceutical companies are structuring and managing their Medical Affairs organizations. The study also examines the scope of Medical Affairs groups, on a product and geographic level, as well as the leadership in charge of the function. Pharmaceutical, biotech and medical device managers and executives will be able to use this research to determine how their Medical Affairs organizations compare with industry benchmarks.

The study includes four segments: a mature markets segment from 2012 and 2009, a pharma segment, medical device segment, and an emerging market segment.

KEY TOPICS

  • Organizational Structure
  • Reporting Relationship
  • Job Level of Group Leader
  • Geographic Span

SAMPLE KEY METRICS
  • Type of structure (i.e. centralization, hybrid, etc.)
  • Number of therapeutic areas and compounds/products Medical Affairs oversees
  • Medical Affairs group dedication
  • Departmental reporting relationships
  • Job level of Medical Affairs head
  • Geographic span of organization
SAMPLE KEY FINDING
  • Centralization of Medical Affairs Unit: Nearly half of study participants favor a centralized approach for their Medical Affairs organization, both in 2009 and 2012. That approach is heavily utilized by the pharma segment whereas the device segment is much more likely to use a hybrid model. Some companies are decentralizing or shifting to a hybrid model because of the varying regulatory hurdles encountered within different regions or therapeutic areas.
  • Medical Affairs Reports to VPs: Three out of four mature market companies in the 2012 benchmark class report to the Vice President level or above, whereas less than 60% did so in 2009. This change was driven by an increase of 20% in Medical Affairs reporting into Senior/Executive Vice Presidents.
METHODOLOGY

Best Practices, LLC engaged 68 Medical Affairs executives and managers at 50 leading global companies. The benchmark class in this study consists of a Mature Markets and Emerging Markets Segment. The Mature Market Segment includes 41 participants from pharma and 12 device respondents. The Emerging Markets Segment consists of 15 participants working in India, China, Brazil, and Turkey.

Industries Profiled:
Health Care; Pharmaceutical; Diagnostic; Medical Device; Manufacturing; Biotech; Consumer Products; Chemical; Biopharmaceutical; Financial Services; Technology


Companies Profiled:
Abbott; Akron Molecules; Alkem Laboratories; Astellas; AstraZeneca; Baxter; Baxter Healthcare; Bayer; Becton Dickinson; Biogen Idec; BMS; Bracco Diagnostics; Covidien; Cubist Pharmaceuticals; Eisai; Endo Health Solutions; Esteve; Ethicon; Ferring Pharmaceuticals; Forest; Genentech; Gilead; GlaxoSmithKline; Grunenthal; Guerbet; Ipsen; LifeCell; Janssen; MAP Pharmaceuticals; MedImmune; Medtronic; Methapharm; MSD Pharma; Mylan; Novartis; Novo Nordisk; Onyx; Pfizer; Philips Healthcare; Ranbaxy; Roche; Sanofi Pasteur; Shire; Shire HGT; Teva; UCB; Upsher-Smith Labs; Valeant; ViroPharma; Xanodyne


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.