Patient Support Excellence: Structure, Activities and Resource Levels to Ensure Patient-Centric

Products and Services

Best Practices, LLC Strategic Benchmarking Research

Table of Contents

Executive Summary pp. 4-15

Research Overview pp. 4

Participating Companies pp. 5

Key Recommendations & Findings Overview pp. 7-9

Detailed Key Findings pp. 66-71

Best Practices and Pitfalls pp. 10-14

Patient Support in Pharma pp. 15-20

Participant Demographics pp. 21-25

Program Structure pp. 26-35

Program Effectiveness pp. 36-42

Staffing and Program Drivers pp. 43-46

Program Staffing pp. 47-51

Program Budget pp. 52-58

Program Activities and Alliances pp. 59-65

Detailed Key Findings pp. 66-71

About Best Practices, LLC pp. 73

Best Practices, LLC, conducted a customized benchmarking study to better understand the growing importance of establishing a patient centric organization and how it can positively impact patient outcomes & commercial results.

Best Practices, LLC engaged 19 Patient Support leaders from 19 pharmaceutical companies through a benchmarking survey.

Research analysts also conducted secondary research regarding different platforms that companies are using to engage with patients.

Research Goal

Research Methodology

Produce reliable industry metrics on current trends in Patient Support group structure, activities and resource/investment levels within the biopharmaceutical sector.

Topics Covered

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

Investigate Patient Support group structure, effectiveness, activities and staffing/budget levels that companies are using to create and maintain a patient centric approach to their medical and commercial operations.

Research Overview

Research Project Objectives & Methodology Patient Support Research Project Objectives & Methodology

3

Benchmark Class:

Large Companies (Revenue > $11 Billion US in 2013)

Mid-Sized Companies ($4-11 Billion US in 2013)

Small Companies (< $4 Billion US in 2013)

(n=7) (n=6) (n=6)

Canada

Universe of Learning: 19 Companies Participated in Study

Nineteen Patient Support leaders from 19 different companies participated in this study. Participants were

recruited because of their involvement in Patient Support programs.

79% of Participants at Director or VP Level

More than three-quarters of the participants in this research study were at the director level or above,

signifying executives with many years of experience dealing with issues around Patient Support shared

their perspectives and insights.

Manager 5%

Senior Manager 5%

Head/Lead 11%

Director 26%

Associate Director

11%

Senior Director 26%

Executive Director

5%

VP 11%

Study Participant Titles

Vice President

Executive Director Patient Strategy

Director

Associate Director

Senior Director

Senior Manager

Director, Patient Support Services

Director

Group Vice President & General Manager

Director

Marketing manager

Senior Director, Patient Advocacy & Corporate Philanthropy

Senior Director, Patient Centric Marketing

Global Patient Affairs Lead

Director, Patient Programs

Senior Director, Patient Engagement

Sr. Director, Global Head of Strategic Marketing

Associate Director, Marketing

Head of Quality Care Strategy & Planning

Insights Summary:

Patient Support Study Insights

Patient Support

Programs Rated as

Very Good Share

Traits

Low Patient Engagement is Achilles’ Heel of

Programs

Focused Patient

Support Activities are

Key to Success

Co-pay assistance programs were singled out as the most effective Patient

Support program.

Corporate web pages should provide clearly marked, highly visible

links/information for Patient Support programs.

Alliances with patient advocacy groups are important; 100% of participants felt

creating alliances with advocacy groups was either highly important (56%) or

moderately important (44%).

Majority have centralized structure

40% have dedicated Patient Support group

Programs have highest patient awareness/engagement for targeted group of

patients – 57% patients aware / 45% patients engaged in programs

80% have Patient Support leadership/headquarters in U.S.

100% say patient co-pay assistance programs are highly effective

An underlying weakness of many Patient Support programs in this study, and

likely across pharma, is lackluster engagement with their target patient group.

At the midpoint (median), companies in the study make 50% of their targeted

patients aware of support activities and just over 20% of those patients are

actually engaged in Patient Support activities.

The difficulty Patient Support programs are having with patient awareness

and engagement may reflect lack of adequate staffing; organizations that

were rated Very Good had 24% more global staffing than the Good or So-So

companies’ combined global staffing.

6

Copyright © Best Practices, LLC

Merck Home Page Replete with Patient-Oriented Links

Top 10 Pharma company Merck demonstrates its focus on patient through its corporate Web site where

the home page has three high-profile portals to patient support programs.

7

Sanofi Takes Visible Steps to Establish Patient-Centric Organization

In its endeavor to be a truly patient-centric healthcare company, Sanofi has undertaken

various initiatives to ensure it includes the patient’s perspective across the organization.

Sanofi appointed Dr. Anne C. Beal to the position of Chief Patient Officer on 31st March, 2014, a first for a Top 10 Biopharmaceutical company.

Sanofi has created a Centre of Excellence for Patient Centricity (CoE for PC). The Center has the vision of improving patient outcomes by evolving a patient-centric model and focus for Sanofi globally within the following framework:

• Patients’ inputs to align and design solutions based on patients’ unique underlying needs

• Creating products and solutions that fit into people’s lives to improve patient outcomes

• Engaging and supporting employees to create a more patient-centered culture, which promotes employee engagement.

Patient Support Often Decentralized; Centralized Seen as Effective

Almost half of the participants reported a decentralized structure for their Patient Support organization.

However, almost 40% are in a centralized structure and a majority of participants who rated their

patient program as “Very Good” were in a centralized structure.

Centralized, 37%

Decentralized by Geography, 11%

Decentralized by Business Unit, 37%

Hybrid by Geography, 11%

Other, 5%

Patient Support Organizational Structure Type

Total Decentralized= 48%

In their qualitative responses, 50% of the participants with a decentralized Patient Support structure said the lack of a centralized approach was a pitfall of their Patient Support organization.

Data Points:

A majority of study participants (60%) who rated their Patient Support program as “Very Good” said they had a centralized structure.

• Function currently does not exist

Other:

N=19

Indicate which choice best describes the organizational structure of your Patient Support function. (Choose one)

9

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Very Good Good So-So

Patient Support Reporting Structure by Effectiveness

Dedicated PS Commercial Marketing Medical Other

Dedicated Patient Support Groups Get Highest “Very Good” Rating

Most of the participants who self-rated their Patient Support groups as Very Good also reported having

a dedicated Patient Support group rather than reporting into another function.

Under what function does your patient support group work and report – segmented by effectiveness rating?

10

N=19

Participants Average 15 Global FTEs for Patient Support

On average, companies participating in this study have 15 FTEs for their worldwide Patient Support

program.

11

N=10

Segment First Quartile

Average Median Third Quartile

Your Area XX XX XX XX

Company Wide

XX XX XX XX

How many FTEs are allocated to Patient Support for your area of responsibility?

How many FTEs are allocated to your company’s worldwide Patient Support organization?

Patient Support FTEs for Your Area of Responsibility and Globally**

** -- FTEs provided in full report.

Worldwide Patient Support Budget Averages $32M for Participants

The varied size of the companies in this study produced a range of company-wide budgets for Patient

Support, going from less than $10 million to more than $45 million.

Please estimate the total budget for Patient Support initiatives for your area of responsibility and your company’s

worldwide Patient Support organization. (Exclude DTC advertising, labor and large one-time capital costs.)

12

N=12

Segment First Quartile

Average Median Third Quartile

Your Area $2M $10M $7M $18M

Company Wide

$10M $32M $27M $45M

Best Practices®, LLC is an internationally recognized thought leader in the field of best practice

benchmarking®. We are a research, consulting, benchmark database, publishing and advisory firm that

conducts work based on the simple yet profound principle that organizations can chart a course to superior

economic performance by leveraging the best business practices, operating tactics and winning strategies of

world-class companies.

6350 Quadrangle Drive, Suite 200

Chapel Hill, NC 27517

(Phone): 919-403-0251

www.best-in-class.com

Learn More About Our Company: