For market access teams, forming relationships with payers is a crucial step towards building a winning product value story. According to a recent Cutting Edge Information study, the vast majority of market access teams — especially US teams — are involved in payer relationships. Ninety-four percent of surveyed US teams are assigned to build and maintain relationships with payers (Figure 1). However, beginning relationships early in the product launch window can make a big difference for teams trying to understand and meet payer requirements.
Outsourced staff can bring valuable expertise to market access teams and help in-house personnel manage activities during the busiest periods of a product’s lifecycle. Small companies, especially, tend to rely on third-party vendors to fill gaps in market access staffing. Their teams are generally smaller than large company market access teams. As such, small teams may have many capability gaps that outsourced staffing can fill. This is especially true for product pricing and launch sequencing. These activities usually reach their peak near product launch, overwhelming already busy small company market access teams. For these teams, outsourcing pricing and launch sequencing activities to third-party vendors can take pressure off of over-extended staff.
As uncertainties continue to mount following the recent vote in the United Kingdom to leave the European Union, questions remain about the referendum’s impacts on pharmaceutical launch sequencing decisions. Assuming that the UK does successfully leave the European Union, the future of the country’s medical regulatory system remains in question. Should the European Medicines Agency (EMA) lose its regulatory jurisdiction over the UK life sciences industry, pharmaceutical companies seeking to launch in the British market could face additional regulatory hurdles. This could have an impact on companies’ launch sequencing plans and even jeopardize the UK’s status as a first-wave launch market.
Companies rely heavily on pharma launch sequencing committees to maximize revenues throughout the product lifecycle. These committees can prove invaluable in ensuring price maximization by carefully considering cross-market price referencing and strategically crafting timelines for launch.
Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is one of the most exciting types of research for a life science company. The reason for this is CER’s high risk and high reward value proposition. Should a CER study demonstrate that the company’s product is superior to a market competitor, the company can use those data to earn favorable reimbursement and impress physicians who may waver between which product to prescribe. But, should the CER study demonstrate that the competing product is superior — well, let’s not talk about that. CER can be so risky that some companies refuse to fund investigator-initiated trials (IITs) that are comparative studies. As for company-run trials, teams may prefer to dedicate resources to database studies than spend oodles of money conducting trials that may backfire. Continue reading
10th October to 11th October 2016,
London, United Kingdom
SMi Group’s 22nd annual European Pharmaceutical Market Access, Pricing and Reimbursement conference returns to London from 10-11 October 2016. The conference is one of the most established in the world, focusing on the changes in pricing and reimbursement and market access.
Pharma key account management (KAM) teams focus on strengthening relationships with existing client accounts and forging new ones. As an example, these teams may reach out to hospital systems to determine which products these organizations use (or would be interested in trying). Some life science teams designate specific KAM groups to handle commercial and market access account types. Others make no distinction across the different audiences that dedicated KAM teams may serve.
Patient centered outcomes, including patient-reported outcomes (PROs), may be as generic or disease area-specific as the PRO team would like. As with any choice, however, there many factors to consider when deciding what type of patient centered outcomes instrument to use. For instance, teams that custom-design specific PRO tools may have very targeted and relevant data for their products. Continue reading
As pharmaceutical companies continue to work to prove the value of their products to payers around the world, they are encountering health technology assessments (HTAs) in many markets around the world. These HTAs require companies to submit value dossiers that follow specific guidelines — often including health economics and comparative effectiveness work. Our research has shown that different HTAs consume varying amounts of raw resources in terms of working hours and budgetary expenditure. However, most companies’ proportions of timing and spending following similar patterns across regions and company types. Continue reading
As any product launch approaches, market access teams are typically hard at work developing key value messages around the world. How this market access launch planning process unfolds, however, can vary across different companies. Market access teams within some companies are largely fragmented and operate in relative autonomy. Other companies take a highly centralized approach to planning market access from a global level. Continue reading