Pharmaceutical Key Opinion Leader Management

$1,995.00 $995.00

As the number of available Pharmaceutical Key Opinion Leaders (KOLs) dwindles due to increased regulatory mandates and institutional restrictions on physician-pharma relationships, finding the right thought leaders becomes increasingly important. Use the report to create centralized KOL development teams to identify, recruit and manage relationships with top KOLs. Set criteria to pinpoint up-and-coming thought leaders at the global, national and regional level. Benchmark extensive thought leader segmentation data split by KOL tier, company size and 26 individual therapeutic areas..

Download a benchmarking report summarySpeak to a pharmaceutical benchmarking expert

Pharmaceutical Key Opinion Leader Management

This study is designed to help medical affairs teams implement key opinion leader (KOL) development teams to identify and recruit thought leaders and to manage and track relationships.  The report’s contents include:

  • 179 Pages
  • 4 chapters + an Executive Summary
  • 95+ graphics

Data have been split by team region:

  • Global
  • US
  • European Country-Level

Data have also been split by company size:

  • Large pharma
  • Mid-size pharma
  • Small pharma
  • Medical device manufacturers

Top Reasons to Buy the Pharmaceutical Key Opinion Leaders Management Report

Benchmark extensive segmentation data for pharmaceutical key opinion leaders: Compare Tier 1, 2 and 3 profiles for pharmaceutical key opinion leaders across a wide range of data splits, including five company types and 26 individual therapeutic areas. Examine the most common segmentation criteria among top-performing pharmaceutical companies, including number of publications, years of clinical experience, speaking ability and much more. Weigh the importance of specific criteria in influencing KOL segmentation and fair-market value decisions.

Identify and recruit global, national and regional pharmaceutical key opinion leaders: Leverage internal and external expertise to pinpoint up-and-coming pharmaceutical key opinion leaders at all levels of geographic influence. Track the number of KOL relationships companies maintain at the global level, as well as within the US and Europe to benchmark your team’s needs. Prepare companywide KOL pools that thrive even after the Sunshine Act’s full implementation.

Create centralized KOL development teams: Explore profiles other top-performing thought leader development teams to structure and right-size your group. Empower teams to maintain strong relationships with pharmaceutical key opinion leaders and companywide KOL databases and manage them by assigning centralized ownership. Benchmark pharmaceutical key opinion leader team spending and staffing patterns across global groups, along with US and individual European markets.

You may also be interested in our medical affairs library as well as our individual medical affairs research reports.

Excerpt from Pharmaceutical Key Opinion Leaders

Maintaining Reasonable Payment Rates and Spending Caps Beneficial for Budgets and Compliance

A large part of maintaining a successful and effective thought leader function is the rapport and relationship with KOLs. As a Company B marketing director said, “I hate the term ‘managing KOLs,’ and I assure you that if you say that to a thought leader, you will damage the relationship.” A strong relationship with a KOL involves give-and-take. It is driven by not only leveraging their expertise and prominence for promotional speeches, but also by including them in clinical trial development and allowing them to conduct their own trials.

While these activities are vital components of the relationship, myriad compliance and ethical factors must be carefully considered. Based on previous Cutting Edge Information research, most companies are prepared for the Sunshine Act’s disclosure requirements and have a system in place for gathering and submitting that information. However, much uncertainty over how this disclosure will affect relationships with pharmaceutical key opinion leaders exists. The line being drawn between a physician and a pharmaceutical company will alter how these two groups interact in the future.

Accredited CME programs are currently exempted from the disclosure requirements, but all other payments from the industry to thought leaders must be reported. With this regulation in mind, many companies already have annual compensation limits in place to maintain the integrity of both the individual and the company. Figure 1.27 shows the range of physician payment caps among surveyed companies from $10,000 to $150,000. Only 2 out of 11 companies surveyed have annual caps above $100,000 and 7 have caps at or below $50,000. The average cap for surveyed companies is $58,000 per year. A centralized group is vital in preventing the company from exceeding its cap for the year. It also helps in ensuring that caps for individual KOLs are kept in place. For non-dedicated teams, each department should plan for and maintain compensation limits as needed.

Table of Contents

14           Study Methodology

15           Study Definitions

17           Five Critical Findings for Thought Leader Management Executives

25           Thought Leader Management Structures, Staffing and Budgets

26           Thought Leader Management Structures

33           Thought Leader Management Staffing

43           Thought Leader Management Budgets and Spending

58           Initiating and Managing Thought leader Relationships

60           Identifying and Targeting Thought Leaders

70           Tracking Companies’ Number of Maintained Thought Leader Relationships by Country

82           Develop Strategic Thought Leader Databases to Manage KOL Relationships

99           Criteria Determining Thought Leader Tiers

102         Thought Leader Tier Profiles

123         Rating Criteria influencing Segmentation

125         Thought Leader Segmentation Data

126         Segmentation Data by Company Type (for All Therapeutic Areas)

132         Segmentation Data by Thought Leader Tier (Broken Down by Company Type)

136         Segmentation Data by Thought Leader Tier (Broken Down by Therapeutic Area)

153         Segmentation Data by Therapeutic Area (Broken Down by Thought Leader Tier)

Charts and Graphics

Executive Summary

20           Figure E.1: Number of Different Healthcare Provider Categories Targeted as Thought Leaders by Surveyed Companies

20           Figure E.2: Categories of Healthcare Providers Targeted as Thought Leaders

22           Figure E.3: Thought Leader Segment Profiles

24           Figure E.4: Surveyed Companies’ Average Initial Investment by Thought Leader CRM Database Type

Thought Leader Management Structures, Staffing and Budgets

26           Figure 1.1: Types of Thought Leader Management Present Within Surveyed Companies

27           Figure 1.2: Thought Leader Development Team Structure: Company A

29           Figure 1.3: Thought Leader Development Team Structure: Company B

30           Figure 1.4: Thought Leader Development Team Structure: Company C

31            Figure 1.5: Thought Leader Development Team Structure: Company D

34           Figure 1.6: Dedicated Thought Leader Management Team Staffing, by Company: Global Level

34           Figure 1.7: Number of Medical Affairs FTEs Directing Global Thought Leader Management in a Non-Dedicated Structure

35           Figure 1.8: Dedicated Thought Leader Management Team Staffing, by Company: US

36           Figure 1.9: Number of Medical Affairs FTEs Directing US Thought Leader Management in a Non-Dedicated Structure, by Company

37            Figure 1.10: Number of Marketing FTEs Directing US Thought Leader Management in a Non-

Dedicated Structure

39           Figure 1.11: Dedicated Thought Leader Management Team Staffing, by Company: Major European Markets

39           Figure 1.12: Number of Medical Affairs FTEs Directing All European Thought Leader Management in a Non-Dedicated Structure

40           Figure 1.13: Number of Medical Affairs FTEs Directing Major European Market Thought Leader Management in a Non-Dedicated Structure, by Company

41           Figure 1.14: Dedicated Thought Leader Management Team Staffing, by Company: Canada

45           Figure 1.15: Dedicated Thought Leader Management Team Budgets, by Company: Global

45           Figure 1.16: Dedicated Thought Leader Management Team Budgets, by Company: US

46           Figure 1.17: Dedicated Thought Leader Management Team Budgets, by Company: EU (Individual Market)

47           Figure 1.18: Thought Leader Management Spending (No Dedicated Group): US

48           Figure 1.19: Thought Leader Management Spending (No Dedicated Group): EU (Individual Market)

49           Figure 1.20: Allocation of Thought Leader Funds

50           Figure 1.21: Allocation of Thought Leader Funds: Global Level

51           Figure 1.22: Allocation of Thought Leader Funds, by Company: Global Level

52           Figure 1.23: Allocation of Thought Leader Funds: US

53           Figure 1.24: Allocation of Thought Leader Funds, by Company: US

54           Figure 1.25: Allocation of Thought Leader Funds: Major EU Market

55           Figure 1.26: Allocation of Thought Leader Funds, by Company: Major EU Market

57           Figure 1.27: Annual Compensation Limits for Thought Leaders, by Company

Initiating and Managing Thought Leader Relationships

64           Figure 2.1: Percentage of Companies Targeting Multiple Healthcare Provider Categories as Thought Leaders (2009)

65           Figure 2.2: Percentage of Companies Targeting Multiple Healthcare Provider Categories as Thought Leaders (2013)

66           Figure 2.3: Categories of Healthcare Providers Targeted as Thought Leaders

66           Figure 2.4: Categories of Healthcare Providers Targeted as Thought Leaders (2009)

67           Figure 2.5: Percentage of Companies Targeting Specific Allied Health Professional Categories as Thought Leaders

68           Figure 2.6: Percentage of Companies Targeting Specific Allied Health Professional Categories as Thought Leaders (2009)

71           Figure 2.7: Number of Thought Leader Relationships, by Company: Global

71           Figure 2.8: Percentage of Thought Leader Relationships, by Tier: Global

72           Figure 2.9: Number of Thought Leader Relationships, by Company: US

73           Figure 2.10: Percentage of Thought Leader Relationships, by Tier: US

74           Figure 2.11: Number of Thought Leader Relationships, by Company: All EU Markets

75           Figure 2.12: Percentage of Thought Leader Relationships, by Tier: All EU Markets

76           Figure 2.13: Number of Thought Leader Relationships, by Company: UK

77           Figure 2.14: Percentage of Thought Leader Relationships, by Tier: UK

77           Figure 2.15: Number of Thought Leader Relationships, by Company: France

78           Figure 2.16: Percentage of Thought Leader Relationships, by Tier: France

78            Figure 2.17: Number of Thought Leader Relationships, by Company: Germany

79           Figure 2.18: Percentage of Thought Leader Relationships, by Tier: Germany

79           Figure 2.19: Number of Thought Leader Relationships, by Company: Spain

80           Figure 2.20: Percentage of Thought Leader Relationships, by Tier: Spain

80           Figure 2.21: Number of Thought Leader Relationships, by Company: Italy

81           Figure 2.22: Percentage of Thought Leader Relationships, by Tier: Italy

Develop Strategic Thought Leader Databases to Manage KOL Relationships

82           Figure 2.23: Percentage of Companies Using Databases to Manage Thought Leader Relationships

83           Figure 2.24: Types of CRM/Databases Used for Thought Leader Management

84           Figure 2.25: Age of Current Thought Leader CRM Systems

84           Figure 2.26: Next Planned Upgrade to Thought Leader Management CRM System

85           Figure 2.27: Average Initial Investment to Develop Proprietary Thought Leader CRM/Database, by Company

86           Figure 2.28: Annual Budget for Maintaining/Upgrading Proprietary Thought Leader CRM/Database, by Company

87           Figure 2.29: Average Initial Investment to Install Off-the-Shelf Thought Leader CRM/Database, by Company

87           Figure 2.30: Annual Budget for Maintaining/Upgrading Off-the-Shelf Thought Leader CRM/ Database, by Company

88           Figure 2.31: Average Initial Investment to Install Basic Spreadsheet Thought Leader CRM/Database, by Company

89           Figure 2.32: Percentage of Companies that Manage CRM/Thought Leader Databases Internally vs. Using a Vendor

90           Figure 2.33: Level of Access Granted to Thought Leader CRM System: Head of Thought Leader Management

90           Figure 2.34: Level of Access Granted to Thought Leader CRM System: Head of MSLs

91           Figure 2.35: Level of Access Granted to Thought Leader CRM System: Other Thought Leader Management Staff

92           Figure 2.36: Level of Access Granted to Thought Leader CRM System: Field-Level MSLs

92           Figure 2.37: Level of Access Granted to Thought Leader CRM System: Medical Affairs Directors

93           Figure 2.38: Level of Access Granted to Thought Leader CRM System: Head of Medical Information

94           Figure 2.39: Level of Access Granted to Thought Leader CRM System: Other Medical Information Staff

94           Figure 2.40: Level of Access Granted to Thought Leader CRM System: Head of Medical Publications

95           Figure 2.41: Level of Access Granted to Thought Leader CRM System: Other Medical Publications Staff

96           Figure 2.42: Level of Access Granted to Thought Leader CRM System: Clinical Operations Staff

96           Figure 2.43: Level of Access Granted to Thought Leader CRM System: Sales Force

Criteria Determining Thought Leader Tiers

102         Figure 3.1: Number of Tiers Used to Segment Thought Leaders, by Company

103         Figure 3.2: Variation of Thought Leader Segmentation Criteria Across Countries

104         Figure 3.3: Tier 1 Thought Leader Profile: Level of Geographic Influence

105         Figure 3.4: Tier 1 Thought Leader Profile: Thought Leader Category

106         Figure 3.5: Tier 1 Thought Leader Profile: Educational Level

107         Figure 3.6: Tier 1 Thought Leader Profile: Average Thought Leader Activity Engagement

108         Figure 3.7: Tier 1 Thought Leader Profile: Average Annual Compensation for Advising Services

109         Figure 3.8: Tier 1 Thought Leader Profile: Average Annual Grant Funding

110         Figure 3.9: Tier 1 Thought Leader Profile: Must Thought Leaders Have Led Clinical Research Studies?

111         Figure 3.10: Tier 1 Thought Leader Profile: Must Thought Leaders Be an Early Adopter of New Drugs?

112         Figure 3.11: Tier 2 Thought Leader Profile: Level of Geographic Influence

112         Figure 3.12: Tier 2 Thought Leader Profile: Thought Leader Category

113         Figure 3.13: Tier 2 Thought Leader Profile: Educational Level

114         Figure 3.14: Tier 2 Thought Leader Profile: Average Thought Leader Activity Engagement

114         Figure 3.15: Tier 2 Thought Leader Profile: Average Annual Compensation for Advising Services

115         Figure 3.16: Tier 2 Thought Leader Profile: Average Annual Grant Funding

116         Figure 3.17: Tier 2 Thought Leader Profile: Must Thought Leaders Have Led Clinical Research Studies?

117         Figure 3.18: Tier 2 Thought Leader Profile: Must Thought Leaders Be an Early Adopter of New Drugs?

118         Figure 3.19: Tier 3 Thought Leader Profile: Level of Geographic Influence

118         Figure 3.20: Tier 3 Thought Leader Profile: Educational Level

119         Figure 3.21: Tier 3 Thought Leader Profile: Thought Leader Category

120         Figure 3.22: Tier 3 Thought Leader Profile: Average Thought Leader Activity Engagement

120         Figure 3.23: Tier 3 Thought Leader Profile: Average Annual Compensation for Advising Services

121         Figure 3.24: Tier 3 Thought Leader Profile: Average Annual Grant Funding

122         Figure 3.25: Tier 3 Thought Leader Profile: Must Thought Leaders Have Led Clinical Research Studies?

122         Figure 3.26: Tier 3 Thought Leader Profile: Must Thought Leaders Be an Early Adopter of New Drugs?

Rating Criteria influencing Segmentation

123         Figure 3.27: Importance of Factors Influencing Thought Leaders’ Fair-Market Value

124         Figure 3.28: Percentage of Companies Choosing a Specific Factor as Most Influential to Thought Leaders’ Fair-Market Value

 Thought Leader Segmentation Data

127         Table 4.1: Segmentation Data for Large Companies (Broken Down by KOL Tier)

128         Table 4.2: Segmentation Data for Mid-Size Companies (Broken Down by KOL Tier)

129         Table 4.3: Segmentation Data for Small Companies (Broken Down by KOL Tier)

130         Table 4.4: Segmentation Data for Medical Device Companies (Broken Down by KOL Tier)

131         Table 4.5: Segmentation Data for Third-Party Companies (Broken Down by KOL Tier)

133         Table 4.6: Segmentation Data for Tier 1 KOLs (Broken Down by Company Type)

134          Table 4.7: Segmentation Data for Tier 2 KOLs (Broken Down by Company Type)

135         Table 4.8: Segmentation Data for Tier 3 KOLs (Broken Down by Company Type)

136         Segmentation Data by Thought Leader Tier (Broken Down by Therapeutic Area)

137         Table 4.9: Segmentation Data for Tier 1 KOLs (Allergy, Animal Health, Anesthesiology, Cardiology, Dentistry)

138         Table 4.9 (Continued): Segmentation Data for Tier 1 KOLs (Dermatology, Emergency Medicine, Endocrinology, Gastroenterology, Hematology)

139         Table 4.9 (Continued): Segmentation Data for Tier 1 KOLs (Immunology, Infectious Diseases, Inflammation, Internal Medicine, Nephrology)

140         Table 4.9 (Continued): Segmentation Data for Tier 1 KOLs (Neurology, Obstetrics & Gynecology, Oncology, Ophthalmology, Orthopedics)

141         Table 4.9 (Continued): Segmentation Data for Tier 1 KOLs (Pain Management, Pulmonary Diseases, Radiology, Rheumatology, Surgery)

142         Table 4.9 (Continued): Segmentation Data for Tier 1 KOLs (Urology)

143         Table 4.10: Segmentation Data for Tier 2 KOLs (Allergy, Animal Health, Anesthesiology, Cardiology, Dentistry)

144         Table 4.10 (Continued): Segmentation Data for Tier 2 KOLs (Dermatology, Emergency Medicine, Endocrinology, Gastroenterology, Hematology)

145         Table 4.10 (Continued): Segmentation Data for Tier 2 KOLs (Immunology, Infectious Diseases, Inflammation, Internal Medicine, Neurology)

146         Table 4.10 (Continued): Segmentation Data for Tier 2 KOLs (Obstetrics & Gynecology, Oncology, Ophthalmology, Orthopedics, Pain Management)

147         Table 4.10 (Continued): Segmentation Data for Tier 2 KOLs (Pulmonary Diseases, Radiology, Rheumatology, Surgery, Urology)

148         Table 4.11: Segmentation Data for Tier 3 KOLs (Allergy, Animal Health, Anesthesiology, Cardiology, Dentistry)

149         Table 4.11 (Continued): Segmentation Data for Tier 3 KOLs (Dermatology, Emergency Medicine, Endocrinology, Gastroenterology, Hematology)

150         Table 4.11 (Continued): Segmentation Data for Tier 3 KOLs (Immunology, Infectious Diseases, Inflammation, Neurology, Obstetrics & Gynecology)

151         Table 4.11 (Continued): Segmentation Data for Tier 3 KOLs (Oncology, Orthopedics, Pain Management, Pulmonary Diseases, Radiology)

152         Table 4.11 (Continued): Segmentation Data for Tier 3 KOLs (Rheumatology, Surgery, Urology)

154         Table 4.12: Segmentation Data for Allergy KOLs

155         Table 4.13: Segmentation Data for Animal Health KOLs

156         Table 4.14: Segmentation Data for Anesthesiology KOLs

157         Table 4.15: Segmentation Data for Cardiology KOLs

158         Table 4.16: Segmentation Data for Dentistry KOLs

159         Table 4.17: Segmentation Data for Dermatology KOLs

160         Table 4.18: Segmentation Data for Emergency Medicine KOLs

161         Table 4.19: Segmentation Data for Endocrinology KOLs

162         Table 4.20: Segmentation Data for Gastroenterology KOLs

163         Table 4.21: Segmentation Data for Hematology KOLs

164         Table 4.22: Segmentation Data for Immunology KOLs

165         Table 4.23: Segmentation Data for Infectious Diseases KOLs

166         Table 4.24: Segmentation Data for Inflammation KOLs

167         Table 4.25: Segmentation Data for Internal Medicine KOLs

168         Table 4.26: Segmentation Data for Nephrology KOLs

169         Table 4.27: Segmentation Data for Neurology KOLs

170         Table 4.28: Segmentation Data for Obstetrics & Gynecology KOLs

171         Table 4.29: Segmentation Data for Oncology KOLs

172         Table 4.30: Segmentation Data for Ophthalmology KOLs

173         Table 4.31: Segmentation Data for Orthopedics KOLs

174         Table 4.32: Segmentation Data for Pain Management KOLs

175         Table 4.33: Segmentation Data for Pulmonary Diseases KOLs

176         Table 4.34: Segmentation Data for Radiology KOLs

177         Table 4.35: Segmentation Data for Rheumatology KOLs

178         Table 4.36: Segmentation Data for Surgery KOLs

179         Table 4.37: Segmentation Data for Urology KOLs

key opinion leader compensation caps, medical affairs