Pharmaceutical Key Opinion Leader Management

$1,995.00 $995.00

As the number of available Pharmaceutical Key Opinion Leaders (KOLs) dwindles due to increased transparency 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 Now! speak-to-an-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 this Pharmaceutical Key Opinion Leader Management Report

Benchmark extensive pharmaceutical key opinion leader segmentation data: Compare Tier 1, 2 and 3 pharmaceutical key opinion leader profiles 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 leader: Leverage internal and external expertise to pinpoint up-and-coming pharmaceutical key opinion leader 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 pharmaceutical key opinion leader relationships 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 Leader Management

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 KOLs 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 1.27shows 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 from Pharmaceutical Key Opinion Leaders

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