Overcoming the DTC Fear Factor

FDA gets on the “Less is More” bandwagon

The “Less is More” approach is gaining traction in health care. Fear is what often causes people to gird themselves with potentially unnecessary health care interventions: fear of getting it wrong, of missing out, of being criticized, of dying. Atul Gwande details the bravery required to challenge the medical status quo in his recent book Being Mortal. Gwande does a great job of debunking the myth of “more care is better care” when it comes to end of life treatment.

Now “Less is More” is being applied to health care communication. The FDA is overcoming the DTC Fear Factor and casting aside unnecessary risk information with the intent to drive superior patient comprehension. The FDA has issued draft guidelines that require less, not more, risk information in the Consumer Brief Summary portion of DTC print ads. PharmaGuy provides a comprehensive (and as always, entertaining) review of the proposed guidelines in his February Newsletter.

But the FDA is not using the editing pen wily-nilly. Knowledge born of research, is taking the edge off of their DTC Fear Factor. Upcoming research includes a study on the risk information presented in television ads. The objective is to see whether listing only the most actionable risks leads to better comprehension than the usual mind-numbing laundry list.

Certainly the FDA has reason to fear getting the level of risk information wrong. As Daniel Carpenter, a Harvard professor who studies the FDA posits in a Health Affairs article, the FDA is driven by it’s “desire to safeguard its reputation for protecting the public’s health.” The FDA’s “Less is More” approach certainly has its critics. Public Citizen criticized the FDA for its proposed August ’14 guidelines on how pharmaceutical companies should present risk information to physicians

This new “Less is More” approach to risk information demonstrates that the FDA is willing to undergo reputational risk to do the right thing for patients by presenting the information in a way patients can understand and act on. There is substantive evidence that links lack of patient understanding with negative health outcomes.”

So what is the likelihood of pharmaceutical review committees embracing the “Less is More” philosophy regarding risk information? Certainly the new review FDA guidelines will help, but as anybody who has sat through a review committee meeting can tell you, there is wide latitude in how FDA guidelines are interpreted. Many opt for the most conservative approach.

My guess is that review committees won’t get over their DTC Fear Factor anytime soon. There is just too much reputational risk. And it is hard to blame them. The media’s knee-jerk reaction is to attribute any misstep to a nefarious motive on the part of Pharma.

Overcoming the DTC Fear Factor will require Marketing Departments to do the hard work of proving that using fewer and simpler words to describe a product or disease state results in better comprehension. Just as the FDA Researchers helped their Reviewers get over the DTC Fear Factor with data, Pharma marketers will need data to bolster the courage of their Review Committees with solid research.

However, conducting research brings along its own “Fear Factor.” What if the language causes consumers to overestimate the efficacy or underplay the risks of the product? So why bother? In the past, trying to boost outcomes by improving communication comprehension was a “nice-to-have,” despite the compelling health literacy case.

But now, the Affordable Care Act makes reimbursement dependent on outcomes and patient experience. So ensuring patient comprehension is critical to the financial viability of Pharma’s direct customers: physicians, hospital systems and health plans. So follow the dollar. Customers care, so pharma marketers should care too.

Complexity is easy in Pharma communication, just go to the label. Eliminating the DTC Fear Factor in Pharma will take hard work. However, in health care, the “Less is More” train has left the station. Time to put fear aside, join the FDA and jump on the “Less is More” bandwagon.

Tom Brady and Atul Gawande: Designing a Different End Game

Tom Brady and Atul Gawande, two Bostonians with wildly divergent careers, both take the same approach to designing a different end game; they flout the conventional wisdom to achieve their objectives. For marketers wanting to change the trajectory of their brand, company, industry or career, these two prominent Bostonians show the power of doing things differently.

Tom Brady, the New England Patriots quarterback, has always been vocal about wanting a different end game, one that would keep him playing high-level football in his 40’s. So according to a recent New York Times Magazine article, Tom defies conventional training practices designed at building strength in favor of those that create more pliable muscles. He credits his unique training practice with sparing him from career ending injuries, ultimately enabling him to win 4 Super Bowls (so far).

Atul Gawande, Boston surgeon and best selling author, challenges the more medicine is better medicine dogma that runs deep in our American cultural veins. Gawande addresses the literal “end game” in his best-selling book Being Mortal, to propose a radical new approach on appropriate care in our last years. Rather than doing everything possible to ensure maximum patient safety and longevity, Gawande contends that instead, a doctor’s role is to ensure that people leave this earth in a way that respects their values and priorities.

To do this, physicians and family members need to understand what constitutes quality of life from the patient’s point of view. In one example, Gawande tells of a daughter’s surprise at her father’s definition of quality of life as “being able to eat chocolate ice cream and watch football.” Her father had been a professor emeritus so she assumed he would not have wanted to live unless it was as a fully functioning intellectual. It was this knowledge that helped her make an entirely different choice for her father when faced with a life and death decision by her father’s surgeons.

I wasn’t so lucky with my father. The idea that more medicine, more effort, is not always appropriate was a totally foreign concept to me for most of his illness (and most of my life). So the poor guy cycled in and out of the hospital to rehab a number of times, getting weaker with every visit. By the time a palliative nurse friend of mine, helped me to see the light, it was too late. Having made the decision to bring him home after our post-dinner talk, I received a call the next morning that he had died in the Rehab institution.

While I can take comfort that my father seemed to enjoy all the attention he received at the Rehab facility, I often wonder if he would preferred a different ending. With my 88-year old mother, I have an opportunity not to make the same mistake.

The lessons of Gawande’s Being Mortal and Tom Brady’s historic Super Bowl victory transcend their individual career choices. Their work is testament to the truth of Einstein’s definition of insanity–doing something over and over again and expecting a different result. These two different men offer the same valuable lesson about the need to challenge the status quo to achieve a different result.

In the pharmaceutical industry where my company, extrovertic, does most of its work, there is a lot of organizational dogma about how to drive sales. It includes “HCPs write prescriptions, not patients,” or the time honored “the sales representative call is the best way to reach physicians.”

I know a lot of talented and progressive marketers who are confronting these doctrines on a daily basis. It’s hard work to be the one constantly going against the grain. But the experiences of Tom Brady and Atul Gawande are proof that a successful end game is worth the fight.

Patient Shopping in Our Lifetime?

This was the one of the final questions asked at a recent Elsevier conference where I was a speaker. The panel charged with answering this question was largely pessimistic. Panelists felt that the byzantine system of setting prices for both medical procedures and pharmaceuticals made it unlikely that consumers would ever get the cost data required for effective shopping behavior. They couldn’t imagine that anyone in the industry would step up to the challenge of making prices more transparent.

There is certainly reason for their negative outlook. For example, a recent study by Verilogue and Duke Medical Center found that when oncologists discussed  breast cancer treatment options with patients, costs were only discussed in 20% of the cases. If patients can’t get information on the costs and outcomes of various medical and drug treatments, then they can’t make the appropriate trade-offs.

In my opinion, the Elsevier panel was right and wrong.

Right because strides towards increased pricing transparency won’t come from within the industry. But wrong because change will be instigated from outside the industry—by government, non-profit organizations and entrepreneurs unencumbered by the war wounds of fighting vested health care interests.

Here are a couple of examples that provide me with hope:

  • On the non-profit side, there is the Minnesota Community Measure Up coalition. They created the Minnesota D5 program, which provides effectiveness scores for treating diabetes by individual clinics/HCP offices.
  • Newer health care services like Counsyl, a genetic testing company, have actually built cost transparency into their business model. Counsyl has developed a proprietary tool that allows patients to calculate their exact costs once their particular insurance policy is factored in before they sign up for the service.
  • Iodine, a newcomer in the cost and rating business for drugs, has developed a very easy interface to help consumers start evaluating the cost/quality trade-offs for different medications.

Information will drive true shopper behavior.  Contrary to popular belief, patients can make educated choices. Patients don’t reflexively opt for latest and the greatest medical solution. As reported in the New York Times, a recent study in the Annals of Surgery, found that parents actually made the cost effective choice regarding appendectomies for their children.

When parents were told that both conventional and laparoscopic surgery yielded the same results, but that conventional surgery was far less expensive, two-thirds of parents chose the less expensive conventional surgery. 31% said that the information they received was the primary driver in their decision and 90% liked having a choice.

Pharma companies are going to have to learn how to market to health care shoppers rather than patients. This means that not only will pharmaceutical companies have to include cost in their outcomes studies with payers, they will also have to convince health care shoppers that their drugs represent a good value for the money.

And much like restaurants and hotels, Pharma companies will have to regularly monitor the various patient quality and cost rating systems to make sure their medications are fairly portrayed. A bad rating will have a direct impact on revenues, as consumers fail to start or stop using a medication, based on a rating they saw.

Pharma companies will need to include these products ratings from patient sites in their analyses of sales results. I predict that these analyses will show a direct correlation between consumer ratings and revenue. And when that happens, it will be the dawn of the era of the true health care shopper!

Follow the Money to Patient Engagement

4 Reasons why Pharma will finally become patient-centric

Pharma Financial Stars Lie with Patient-Centricity

Pharmaceutical marketers have been talking about Empowered Patients ever since I joined Pfizer Pharmaceuticals in the mid-90’s as one of their first consumer marketing hires. But despite all the talk, most pharmaceutical companies are nowhere near being patient-focused.

Pharma marketers know things are changing but are holding onto the HCP-focused status quo for as long as possible. In fact, I was recently asked by a Pharma Exec charged with driving patient engagement, “When do we really have to get serious about patients?” They felt that their primary customer was still the physician.

But ever the optimist, I believe that the next 2-5 years will represent a seismic shift in pharmaceutical marketing. Away from a singular focus on the physician towards a more patient-centric way of being. And that’s because patient-centricity is increasingly critical to a pharmaceutical company’s growth and financial health. As Watergate’s Deep Throat said, “Follow the Money.”

To my mind, there are four market trends that are helping to realign Pharma’s financial stars towards patient-centricity:

1. The Dawn of Health Care Shoppers-Historically, consumers exhibited very little true shopping behavior, even as they became increasingly responsible for their health care costs. This lack of true shopping behavior was largely because consumers had little visibility into costs and quality data and therefore couldn’t make the necessary trade-offs.

But that is changing.

Health care reform, combined with private sector efforts, are increasing transparency around both costs and quality, allowing consumers to start making trade-offs with their health care expenditures, including medications. Patients will move from merely asking a physician for a particular drug they saw advertised on television to making a highly considered decision to pay for drug A or drug B.

With this true decision-making, patients will be able to move markets. As this market moving ability starts to show up in pharma company regression analyses, Pharma companies will be stumbling over each other to be the most patient-centric.

2. The shifting economics of their customers-HCPs, Hospitals and Integrated Delivery Systems won’t be rewarded on the quantity of services they deliver anymore, but rather on the quality of those services and the patient experience. The smart pharmaceutical companies are going to look for ways to help their customers deliver better patient outcomes and experiences. And that is going to require additional investment to prove their patient interventions actually deliver.

3. The exploding orphan drug opportunity-Specialty and orphan drugs now represent the path to financial growth for many Pharma companies. And along with the orphan drug opportunity comes the empowered patient. These patients play a significant role in which drugs get into clinical trials, get approved by the FDA and reimbursed by insurers. If a company is in the Orphan Drug space, then by default they have to be patient centric. I predict that this “patient centricity” will eventually work its way into larger, primary care marketing practices.

4. Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) in clinical trials will increasingly become commercial differentiators-In many categories, pharmaceutical researchers have already captured patient-reported outcomes, particularly on quality of life. However, these metrics have had little true commercial value since the FDA has been leery of approving claims based on patient reported outcomes. I believe that the FDA’s new focus on patient centricity, as witnessed by their “Patient Focused Drug Development” initiative may signal a growing acceptance of PRO claims. And as PROs become more important to the commercial success of a medication, so will the patients.

It is this alignment of Pharma’s financial stars around patient-centricity, that makes me believe that pharmaceutical companies will finally begin to truly embrace the empowered patient. Just follow the money. It never lies.

How design thinking can elevate the patient experience

Finding purpose in the mundane

What could be more boring than the traditional patient pamphlet?

Many times patient pamphlets are created without the most important ingredient, the patient. The traditional pamphlet is generally a collection of information that the health care marketer wants to impart to the patient. Little thought is put into what the patient wants to know. And even less thought is put into how the patient wants to physically interact with the pamphlet.

A little design thinking could change all that. One of the key principles of design thinking is purpose. Every element should have a customer-focused reason for existing. This requires a deeply rooted understanding of customers and how they interact with a particular object. It is this understanding that can transform the mundane into the marvelous.

One of the best examples I have ever seen is the in-room collateral for the Wanderlust Hotel in Singapore that I stumbled upon at an American Institute of Graphic Arts (AIGA) exhibit. The design team from Foreign Policy Design had a profound understanding of the prototypical Wanderlust guest. The type of guest who checks into the Wanderlust hotel is “curious and interested in discovering, engaging and immersing in new experiences.” They have a desire for personal growth through exploration.

Based on this understanding, the designers reinvented the “almost-useless conventional in-room directory” into a more useful travel tool. The in-room directory was morphed into an itinerary, full of useful local information including “area maps, train and bus maps, local shops and restaurants as well as thoughtful blank pages for notes and sketches.”

The reimagined in-room directory led to a redesigned check-in procedure. As the AIGA exhibit notes detailed, the itinerary “improved the check-in workflow, converting a laborious and dreaded check-in process into something fun, a talking point.”

This proves that one small design element can trigger a cascade of changes that lead to an improved overall brand experience. And the business results? The hotel has been featured in core travel publications including Travel & Leisure, has appeared on almost 500 blogs, and its room occupancy rates have risen.

And no wonder, “Creating a unique customer experience is one of the best ways to achieve sustainable growth, particularly in industries that are stagnating,” according to the consulting firm ATKearny. In industry after industry, higher customer satisfaction has been shown to drive sales and profits.

So back to the patient pamphlet. What is its core purpose? What is the problem that the pamphlet (or for that matter, the website, app or DTC ad) is trying to solve? What other problems does the patient have? Is there a role it can play there? How should it be redesigned?

What happens if the patient pamphlet is reimagined as an itinerary for better health, rather than merely a way to convey basic product information? Could infusing a higher-order purpose into a pamphlet set off a cascade of changes in all marketing activities?

The most overlooked marketing investment

Investing in your customers. That’s what companies, like YouTube, who have their pulse on the consumer do according to a recent article in Digiday. YouTube is helping their customers develop the content that will help them realize their dream of becoming digital stars. But the concept of customer investment goes beyond the digital world. Investing in customers is a business strategy well described in “Who Do You Want Your Customers to Become?” an e-book by Michael Schrage being offered by the Harvard Business Review.

Schrage says businesses can keep growing by asking, “Who do our customers want to become?” and helping them get there by strategically investing in customer capabilities. Invest in customers, because, as Schrage puts it, “your future depends on their future.”

Health care is no exception.

Think of the demands placed on physicians by the Accountable Care Act. To be successful in the future, physicians will need to become:

• Customer service experts since patient experience will drive reimbursement
• Data analysts as the practice collects patient satisfaction data
• Healthcare systems thinkers as practice ratings are dependent on the entire office visit experience, not just the physician interaction

The demands on patients have also increased. Take the experience of Peter Drier who practically become a forensic accountant to track down an unexpected $117,000 in charges associated with his neck surgery as recently reported in the New York Times. Or Matt Might who, according to an article in the New Yorker, had to supersize his social media skills to assemble a group of patients across the globe to give his son’s illness a name.
With the advent of the health care exchanges, Payers who once operated in the B-to-B mode have now found themselves having to develop the type of direct-to-consumer marketing skills pharmaceutical marketers acquired in the 1990’s.

There is no shortage of investment needs when it comes to pharmaceutical customers. Of course there is all sorts of regulation against practice building and incentivizing use. However, by applying a little creativity and keeping the end game in mind—improved outcomes and a better patient experience—the smart pharmaceutical “investor” will be able to eke out a competitive advantage with some well placed customer bets!

Jay-Z your DTC

Increase impact and save money

Jay-Z is a modern day master of media.  In applying public relations thinking to his use of traditional paid media, he makes every GRP work harder. When launching a product, whether it be a book or his recent CD, Jay-Z appears to have a three part formula: 1) develop a “talk-worthy” concept; 2) make a big but short-lived splash using traditional paid media and 3) employ digital and social promotion for long-tail promotion.

Consider Jay-Z’s approach to the launch of his album, Magna Carta … Holy Grail. It entailed:

  1. Talk-worthy concept: Jay-Z created a talk-worthy concept of providing his album to Samsung Galaxy owners 5 days earlier than to the general public
  2. High profile media: Launched the promotion in a highly visible, three minute commercial during Game 5 of the NBA finals
  3. Drive to digital: Drove people to the album website where they could download the free app

But the concept is not limited to Jay-Z. Starbucks used this three-step process to build sales using the 2008 election as a media hook.  Their talk-worthy concept was to offer a free cup of coffee to voters. Starbucks advertised this offer on a high profile Saturday Night Live’s “Election Bash” episode. And finally, they sustained their effort with what Howard Schultz calls in his book, “Onward”a torrent of digital and social media activity” to “amplify the 60-second spot.”

What this three step process boils down to is using public relations thinking rather than traditional media planning to deploy brand media spend. The benefit of this PR thinking is that the brand message automatically becomes more relevant to consumers because it taps into current culture.

Health care brands can also tap into popular culture. A well-placed, high impact unbranded communication that really connects with patients about a serious health issue could be an important wake-up call. The high profile unbranded splash would also serve as high impact “screener” to get the attention of your target patients and spark their curiosity enough to follow through to a branded site.

While the high profile splash is expensive, the opportunity to create an on-going drumbeat with digital makes the effort very measurable and affordable. Using this three-step process, extrovertic recently recommended a new product launch plan that relied on one-fifth the advertising expenditures of the brand’s closest competitors.

So how could this be employed on a pharmaceutical brand? Consider the straightforward Astra Zeneca Crestor print ad running in major magazines. A picture of a doctor asking the question, “Is your cholesterol at goal?”

How much more attention would Crestor get if they associated the product with the broader concept with setting and reaching goals and introduced the effort in a high profile sporting event followed by a deep digital push?

So here are two thought-starters on how to Jay-Z your DTC and save money in the process:

  1. Scour your brand for relevant hooks and events. What relevant anticipated governmental or healthcare organization announcements coming up? Can you link your brand to the news in a meaningful way?
  2. Have your agency cost out a media splash/digital long-tail type of plan. Can you save money and increase impact?

Packing personal into non-personal promotion

The Pharmaceutical industry’s “Non-personal promotion” or NPP. What a weird concept. As my extrovertic partner, Bill Fleming says, “In any other industry—the direct mail, digital marketing and telephonic selling—would just be called marketing.”

In fact, most other industries involved in business-to- business (B-to-B) marketing are focused on making every contact, no matter what the channel, more personal. Consider IBM and Cisco.

1. IBM – Using social media to personalize telesales. According to an article in ChiefMarketer.com, when telemarketing and email were failing to produce results, IBM got personal. IBM’s studies showed that IT decision were likely to use social media as a part of their purchasing decision making.

So IBM created social media profiles for a small team of inside sales representatives on Twitter, LinkedIn and YouTube. To make it seamless for the reps, IBM created a robust content calendar and provided hash tags so the reps could listen to relevant online conversations.

The results? IBM got 50,000 LinkedIn connections (up from 535 in the beginning of the test), over 20 major sales wins and has experienced a quicker uptake of their promotional offers. Check out Stuart Michie’s YouTube video for a good example of how to talk about a representative’s expertise.

2. Cisco – Video takes center stage. Again, customer understanding formed the basis of their strategy. According to an article on OnlineVideo.net, Cisco’s research found that 96% of IT decision makers and tech buyers watch videos for business. And most importantly, 84% either forward, share or post tech-related videos. So Cisco started creating videos, over 1,000 new videos a year.

Too expensive? Think again. You don’t need the production values of a DTC commercial or a MOA video. According to Cisco’s Leslie Drate,“it doesn’t really matter how much we spend on producing the video. The results for what we spend $100,000 on could be similar to what we spend $1,000 on. It just has a lot to do with content and audience.”

B-to-B all-star companies keep up with their customer information seeking habits. They adopt the technology their customers use to market to them. It is even possible in health care. Check out GE Healthcare’s YouTube Channel. Or better yet….

  1. Try a social media pilot program. Provide either a telesales rep or payer national accounts manager with a Facebook page. Levels of access to information can easily be controlled. Content could include interesting stories related to your therapeutic area, patient support material or journal articles. According to a QuantiaMD study cited in Ragan’s Healthcare Communication News, over 65% of physicians use social sites for professional purposes.
  2. Get into the video business. Evaluate all your printed materials and determine what makes sense as a video. Distribute the video widely, especially on YouTube. The Google algorithm favors social media such as YouTube and Facebook over other online media properties.

Better-Faster-Cheaper: The New Normal

Four operating principles of the new sharing economy

Two out of three ain’t bad.” That’s what we have always been told. But if my experience with new economy companies is any indication, that’s old school thinking. Companies like Airbnb, Uber, WeWork and Task Rabbit are better, faster and cheaper. Here are four operating principles that drive this triple threat business model.

1.  Investing in Customers-WeWork: Extrovertic recently shed our 5,000 square foot space and moved into WeWork Soho West. WeWork continually invests in its customer success by publicizing member businesses, teaching critical entrepreneurial skills and negotiating reduced rates for fundamental services.

WeWork Labs

For extrovertic, this community opens up a wealth of talent pool from the emerging health technology and communication companies.  For example, there are 19 video producers in our location alone.  And I bet they do it better-faster-cheaper than traditional sources.

2.  Continual Improvement-Task Rabbit: I hired a Task Rabbit in February to replicate my grandmother’s recipe box for my two cousins. As someone who was asked by her mother not to show her younger sister how to cut and paste, I knew the job was beyond my skillset.

The Task Rabbit procurement process was a little involved, but worth it. Fast forward a couple of months, Task Rabbit has completely changed their business model based on the extensive data they have collected on their Task Rabbits and clients. Task Rabbit simplified both the pricing and hiring process. Lesson: for businesses wanting to offer better-cheaper-faster, there is no set-it-and-forget-it mode.

3.  Mutual accountability-Airbnb: A key factor in Airbnb’s success is because it is designed to provide excellent experiences for both the host and guest. And as countless business studies will tell you, happy employees result in happy customers.

At Airbnb, the hosts and guests rate each other so responsible behavior is reinforced on both sides. If a guest complains or mentions an issue, hosts are empowered to tell their side of the story, apologize or in some instances refute the claim. Moral of the story, if you want better employees, give them a voice.  

4.  Mobile from Day OneUber: One of the best things about Uber is its mobile interface. It is so easy to order and pay for a car. Even my 88-year old mother ubers everywhere.  Design experts will tell you that you get a different result if the design process moves mobile to desktop. It is easier to improve and enlarge than edit and shrink (a progressive enhancement versus graceful degradation issue of sorts). And one-third of mobile web users indicate that they go online mostly using their phones. Lesson: mobile has to be the starting point.

Using companies like Uber, Airbnb, WeWorks and Task Rabbit saves money. Extrovertic is a big Uber fan. However, the larger lesson is to alter your business model to provide the triple threat benefits: better-faster-cheaper. The more customers experience to better-faster-cheaper from the Ubers of the world, the more they will expect it from all businesses. And healthcare will be no exception.

Thanks for letting us share!
Dorothy

“Orange is the new Black”: what prisoners and patients have in common

While binge watching the second season of Orange is the new Black I was reminded of an important parallel between patients and prisoners. Both are victims of a “3rd party decider economy” where “the person selecting a product or service is not the person who will actually use it.”

OITNB

In a New York Times article entitled, “Orange Is the New Green,” Adam Davidson, wrote about the plot line where poor Piper waits weeks to get her shower sandals from the prison commissary. In an economically rational world, prison commissaries would try to maximize sales to inmates and minimize out-of-stocks.

After extensive real life research, Davidson concluded that the prison system wasn’t focused on meeting the prisoner’s needs, but rather the prison’s needs. And it was this emphasis on the 3rd party rather than the end user that was thwarting rational economic behavior.

To a large extent, the US health care system has been designed to meet the needs of HCPs rather than patients. Pharmaceutical marketing perpetuates this 3rd party decider distortion by allocating the bulk of marketing budgets to HCPs rather than patients. According to the 2014 MM&M/Ogilvy Healthcare Marketers trend report, pharmaceutical marketers spend over 50% of their budget on physician marketing. This is on par with last years report. Despite all the patient centric talk, spending has not changed.

Like prison commissaries with out-of-stock situations, allocating more money to HCP marketing is not rational economic behavior. There is significant evidence that HCPs’ sway over prescribing decisions is waning. Patients and Payers are increasingly calling the shots. But old habits die hard. Most of pharmaceutical decision makers today have built successful careers on face-to-face selling to HCPs. It is hard to divert budget from a technique that has delivered so faithfully for so many years.

Perhaps the upcoming 2015 planning season will take on this HCP market distortion. The US health care system is slowly being reoriented around patient needs. For example, the government is driving more patient focus with the Affordable Care Act and the FDA has initiated hearings on patient focused drug development.

Pharmaceutical marketers could redesign the 2015 planning process around patient needs. For example, why not use the patient journey to guide investment across all customer groups, not just patients? What are the HCP initiatives that have the most impact on patients? Invest in those! Think of the 2015 planning process as a binge session on the needs of patients, a productive binge session you don’t even have to feel guilty about.

Thanks for letting us share!

Dorothy