Value-Driven Patient Support Programs: How Top Companies Engage, Educate and Ensure the Adherence of their Patients

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


Companies Profiled:
AbbVie; Alexion Pharmaceuticals; Alkermes; Astellas; AstraZeneca; Baxter International; Bayer; Bionical Solutions; Boehringer Ingelheim; Celgene; Cipla; Daiichi Sankyo; Dr Reddy's Laboratories; EMD Serono; Envision Pharma Group; GlaxoSmithKline ; Hoffmann-La Roche; Horizon Pharma; Incyte; Invive Healthcare; Ipsen; Johnson & Johnson; Kadmon Pharmaceuticals; LEO Pharma; Merck; Merck Serono; MSD; Myovant Sciences; NexGen Healthcare Communications; Novartis; Novo Nordisk; OTSUKA; Parexel; Pfizer; S3 Group; Sanofi; Sanofi Genzyme; Servier; Takeda Oncology; Takeda Pharmaceuticals; UCB Pharma

Study Snapshot

Best Practices, LLC engaged 57 Patient Support leaders from 41 pharmaceutical companies in this research through a benchmarking survey. Research analysts also conducted secondary research regarding the different platforms that companies are using to engage with patients. More than 70% of the benchmark partners serve at the director level or above.

Key topics covered in this report include:

• Patient Support Organizational Structure Type
• Patient Support Organization Location - Dedicated Group or Within Another Function
• Patient Support Group Effectiveness
• Key Functions Represented within Patient Support
• Patient Support Group Budget - Localized and Global
• Patient Support Group Staffing - Localized and Global
• Funding Sources for Patient Support Group

• Collaborate heavily with vendors: Heavy collaboration with vendors is the norm in the industry when managing hub services. In this scenario, which is the case in 81% of respondents, the vendor takes into account what the company wants to provide and creates new offerings to suit their needs, rather than simply pulling from existing offerings.
  
  
• Increase expenditure on patient treatment experience and patient adherence: Nearly three fourths of the respondents cited improving treatment experience of patients and patient adherence as highly influential drivers in designing patient support programs, followed by improving treatment experience of HCPs (68%) and helping patients improve quality of life (65%). Thus, it is necessary to direct most of the budget toward activities that are patient focused, such as understanding unmet patient needs.

I.	Overview	pg. 3
	Research Objectives	pg. 4
	Universe of Learning	pg. 5
	Best Practices for Consideration	pg. 6
II.	Program Purpose and Development	pg. 7
III.	Program Structure and Support	pg. 14
IV.	Investment and Resource Levels	pg. 20
V.	Internal and External Partners	pg. 27
VI.	Implementing Patient Support Hubs	pg. 30
VII.	Best Practices and Pitfalls	pg. 37
VIII.	Participant Profile	pg. 41
IX.	About Best Practices	pg. 45

• Interview narrative around patient centricity
• Drivers of patient support programs
• Effective metrics for measuring the success of patient support activities
• Overall effectiveness of benchmarked companies’ patient support programs
• Effectiveness of the activities utilized as part of benchmarked companies’ patient support programs
• Estimated percentage of benchmark partners’ patients (to whom they target patient support) who are aware of their patient support activities
• Estimated percentage of benchmark partners’ patients (to whom they target patient support) who take advantage of or engage in their patient support activities

• Best practices for the implementation of patient support programs in multiple countries
• Organizational structure of the patient support function
• Geographic level of benchmark partners’ patient support groups
• Patient support group reporting
• Key functions within patient support group / department

• Estimated total budget for patient support initiatives, activities and programs (excluding direct-to-consumer advertising, labor and large one-time capital costs)
• Estimated percentage of patient support budget out of the company's total budget for patient service initiatives, activities, and programs during the current budget year
• Estimated current capital budget for infrastructure (e.g. technology, service center capabilities, etc.) to support patient support programs specifically dedicated for patient support
• Funding sources for patient support program
• Total number of FTEs (full time equivalent employees = in-house + contract) working in benchmark companies’ worldwide patient support organizations
• Total number of FTEs (in-house + contract) allocated to patient support for benchmark partners’ area of responsibility
• Factors influencing the level of staffing within patient support organizations
• Factors influencing the development of a new patient support program

• Level of involvement of legal department in patient support activities
• Involvement of patient support group with health outcomes data collection and / or analysis

• Utilization of patient hub services as part of patient support activities (patient support hubs can be defined as any package service offerings for patient support)
• Patient support hub operations performed in-house vs. through a vendor
• Patient support hub vendor management
• Patient support hub offering - full spectrum of services in one package vs. patients choosing individual services
• Inclusions in patient support hub packages / services
• Factors considered when tailoring programs for patients
• Utilization of an IT platform to manage patient cases and collect feedback
• Types of hub IT platforms used
• Vendors acknowledged for good work in patient support initiatives by benchmark partners and their areas of expertise

• Best practices for maintaining an effective patient support organization
• Pitfalls or stumbling blocks encountered by benchmark partners as part of a patient support organization
• Interview narrative around patient centricity

• Job levels and geographic span of benchmark partners
• Single brand or multi-product therapeutic area franchise represented in the survey insights
• Primary therapeutic area of the franchise (or brand) represented in the survey insights; whether classified as a rare disease