Author: Alex W.

Social media is among the most valuable channels by which pharmaceutical brands can reach healthcare decision-makers, drive engagement and build their businesses.

However, there are a few key factors to keep in mind when building a social media strategy – from regulatory challenges to the rise of the pharma influencer.

The proliferation of social media channels and the expansive reach they enable has propelled healthcare provider (HCP) networking as they take to platforms including Facebook and LinkedIn to discuss their work and spread scientifically-backed research, products and treatments on a global scale. Engaging this audience across traditional social media channels offers many benefits, enabling marketers to reach HCPs in their professional sphere as well as in their personal, everyday lives.

And while strict pharma regulations have long stifled brand reach when using traditional targeting methods, social media is becoming increasingly pharma-friendly. Today, Facebook even allows for the same advanced targeting you’d expect from programmatic or EMR, thanks to the platform’s robust first-party data (a factor becoming increasingly important as the curtain falls on the third-party cookie). On a platform such as Facebook, pharma brands can hone in on a specific HCP audience – or even a specific practitioner if your list match is right – and push out relevant content to them while they are scrolling.

For pharmaceutical brands, the importance of at least maintaining a presence on these social platforms is becoming more exigent. HCPs are there, just like they are on EMRs and portals. Brands can further increase their increasing frequency and reach by extending into social. As a result, they’ll drive awareness, engagement and, ultimately, ROI. But maximizing this ROI requires that brands consider certain factors when developing their social strategies.

The opportunity to catch Dr. Sam as Ms. Sam

We all know the importance of reaching doctors when they are in a healthcare practitioner mindset – while interacting with patients, consulting with their peers, at the point of prescribing or doing research. But we can’t forget the power of engaging with doctors while they are also in their everyday mindsets. Dr. Sam is also Ms. Sam. She engages with consumer channels because she too is a consumer. And the way that Dr. Sam engages with social media during her off-hours is no exception.

According to MedData Group, 72% of physicians surveyed were active on Facebook weekly and 38% were active on Instagram and LinkedIn weekly. The types of professional content on Facebook that physicians are most likely to engage with include continuing medical education opportunities (37%) and physician online community information (31%).

Dr. Sam as Ms. Sam is still a doctor, always in doctor mode, and using social platforms to further her connections with other medical professionals or getting advice or education from those who can relate. Via social media, doctors connect with peers from all over the world, extending their network past their in-office or med school colleagues and gaining access to entirely new cohorts. The appeal of getting advice from trusted professionals or sharing research has attracted millions of HCPs worldwide.

The pharma influencer

Another key factor to consider is the steady rise of pharma influencers – which could arguably be the new term for key opinion leaders (KOLs), thanks to social media.

Pharma influencers, who are often HCPs, have mass followings and get treated like celebrities – but their social influence perks are often just a fallback for their everyday jobs as practitioners. Consumers often see these influencers as trusted authorities.

Considering that SocialPub projects that the social influencer industry will be worth between $5 and $10bn by next year, pharmaceutical brands that partner with popular – and well-trusted – social influencers have a valuable opportunity to drive their bottom line.

Understanding the pharma marketing funnel

The key to reaching HCPs is knowing that pharma follows the same marketing funnels as any other vertical – while acknowledging that there are stronger differentiators on how awareness happens.

Engagement with a doctor can be facilitated by a sales team in the doctor’s offices or via paid media promotions that have been targeted to key physicians via their NPI. These differences in how a doctor can be influenced require us to think about where physicians are in their condition/treatment journey and how the lower funnel metrics could also build up instead of our tendency to build strategies only from the top down.

Pharma brand managers and marketers should engage HCPs where they are spending their time: on social platforms that allow you to prepare now for a cookie-less world, and take advantage of a high-value targeting opportunity that is both established, yet largely untapped for many pharma brands. Challenge your in-house team or agency to bring you a clear HCP-focused social media strategy, and work with your legal and regulatory teams to educate marketers on what’s possible.

Inspiration/References

Telemedicine has played a key role during the COVID-19 pandemic, allowing non-urgent but vital care to be provided in the safety of a patient’s home, while hospitals and primary care centers focus on emergency treatment. While its benefits are clear during a global pandemic, will it continue to grow and be a part of our lives in a post-lockdown world? What is its value? How will it be used to lessen the burden on health systems and improve quality of care? Before we tackle these questions, let’s first address three common myths.

Myth 1: Telemedicine is just teleconsultation used in primary care settings.

Reality: Telemedicine has many roles in healthcare delivery and spans the entire patient journey.
It can take many forms and is often labelled with a wide variety of terms: digital health, e-health, telehealth or teleconsultation, just to name a few. Ask someone what these words mean and you’re likely to get ambiguous and overlapping definitions.

With the rising demand for digital health and telemedicine applications over the past year, the industry, including regulators and professional associations, is actively working to clarify and define key terms to provide necessary clarity in a rapidly evolving space. Examples include the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society releasing a definition for “digital health” in March 2020, and the EU Medical Devices Directive expanding to include telemedicine solutions as part of their regulatory framework. The Digital Therapeutics Alliance has also drawn boundaries and classified an important subset of telemedicine technology – digital therapeutics (DTx). Industry alignment is fundamental in creating a shared language and understanding, underpinning the creation of regulatory pathways and assessment framework to advance progress.

We reviewed the multitude of definitions and see telemedicine as, in essence, the provision of clinical services remotely using both virtual and digital interactions at the core of a broad and complex set of digitally enabled healthcare interactions.

The following are not included in our definition:

• Non-clinical telehealth, including telepharmacies, contact tracing and fitness tracking
• Digital applications designed solely for in-person physical settings (e.g. digital lab diagnostics
• Infrastructure that enables telemedicine, such as EHRs/EMRs, FIHR standards and HIPAA-compliant data centers

To bring this definition to life, we show here how it can be applied across the patient journey from prevention through wellness.

• Pre-diagnosis: Keeping populations healthy, preventing disease at its root.
  Example: CureApp is a prescription DTx that supports patients with nicotine addiction used in conjunction with a portable carbon monoxide checker and is the first DTx to be nationally reimbursed in Japan.
• Diagnosis: Driving faster patient identification, diagnosis or triage to therapy; plugging gaps in care.
  Example: In the U.K., Arc Health partnered with EMIS Health to improve GP access in care homes with its remote diagnostic platform for the patient with a number of connected meters and a camera. The partnership will introduce Arc to 57% of GP practices across the country.
• Post-diagnosis: Supporting remote patient monitoring, disease management or adherence.
  Example: FreeStyle Libre, a continuous glucose monitoring system, provides care for more than 2 million people across 57 countries, with reimbursement secured in 37 countries. Studies demonstrate increased glucose control for users who consistently scan.

Myth 2: Telemedicine is a new development that would not exist without COVID-19.

Reality: COVID-19 accelerated telemedicine adoption by amplifying macrotrends and filling both new and pre-existing gaps in care, as the pandemic disrupted in-person physician visits and highlighted existing structural flaws in the healthcare system.

To say that it originated with new technologies at the onset of COVID-19 would be misleading. In reality, most of the technology already existed prior to 2020, exemplified through Teva’s acquisition of Gecko Health in 2015 and Roche’s acquisition of mySugr in 2017.

COVID-19 highlighted structural gaps in the way care is delivered and received. This expedited convergence of needs and expectations pushed the patient further to the forefront, with rightful demands for a better and seamless healthcare experience.

These underlying causes for the surge in this trend will continue to drive the market forward, even as we return to more in-person interactions. A key question remains: If the underlying factors were here all along, why did it take a pandemic for telemedicine to take off? There were significant barriers to telemedicine pre-COVID, such as concerns around privacy, security and trust; usability and integration; digital capability; and know-how. Although these still exist, necessity forced patients, providers and healthcare systems to overcome these barriers to help patients to receive care. Moving forward, security, user experience, cost and access will remain key considerations.

Myth 3: Telemedicine is an over-hyped trend that won’t last after COVID-19.

Reality: Though the number of teleconsultations has gone down in recent months as restrictions are being lifted, telemedicine is here to stay.

1) Levels of telemedicine growth during COVID-19 have increased at an unprecedented pace. During the pandemic, awareness and usage of telemedicine has grown with telehealth claim lines increasing from 0.15% of medical claims in April 2019 to 13% in April 2020, and up to 85% of physicians conducting some of their patient visits via telehealth. Accenture’s research showed that patients are open to new models of care as a result of COVID-19, and digital technologies will be key to fine-tune the patient services model and deliver the intended the impact.

While limited access to in-person visits could create an artificial inflation of the telemedicine market, following analysis of industry reports conducted by Accenture, we see that telemedicine would contract globally post-COVID but would remain above pre-COVID levels, with growth rate predictions for 2019-2025 shifting from 14.5% pre-COVID to 21.8% post-COVID.

2) COVID-19 has caused a shift in attitudes. 48% of patients state they would be more willing to seek virtual care in the future and 54% of primary care physicians intend to continue using telemedicine. The demand  is expected to continue due to the tangible value it brings:

• Removing points of friction in the patient experience
• Facilitating access to healthcare (Example: specialists and rural access)
• Improving standard of care by building a holistic picture of patient health, allowing pre-emptive diagnosis and proactive disease management
• Reducing costs for healthcare providers and payers through triage, reduction of travel and minimized hospital stays

3) During COVID-19, governments and regulators have had to adapt. In Germany, Digital Health Applications Ordinance — DiGAV introduced pathways to review the reimbursement eligibility of digital health applications by statutory insurers. In Japan, telehealth regulations and reimbursement conditions by national health insurance have been relaxed. In the U.S., many of the expanded telehealth services temporarily covered by Medicare due to COVID-19 have been made permanent as of December 2020.

Clearly defined regulatory pathways are a fundamental building block for delivery and widespread adoption. As these frameworks continue to develop, companies must pay close attention to this dynamic environment.

The healthcare ecosystem, including life sciences industry, needs to prepare itself for a world where telemedicine and digitally enabled care become the status quo, and address the implications for their businesses. How will they collaborate across this expanding set of telemedicine players? How do they commercialize and succeed in this new context? These are the burning questions for the industry as it adapts to a new reality.

Source/References

Despite a wave of positive recognition at the start of the pandemic, public trust in hospitals and health systems has declined, according to Edelman’s annual Trust Barometer study. But the data also shows that the pharmaceutical industry continues to enjoy an uptick in positive public perception.

The venerable Edelman Trust Barometer, based on an online survey that spans 28 countries and some 33,000 respondents, examines trust and credibility in global institutions. Amid a climate of instability amplified by COVID-19, civil unrest over systemic racism and an economic crisis, this year’s study found that trust has decreased across all types of societal institutions – including business, government and media – and that misinformation has proliferated.

The results showed an unusual trajectory for trust in the health sector. It experienced a boost in May 2020, followed by a decline.

That may say that people are losing their trust in all institutions.

Among the health subsectors singled out in the report – pharma, biotech, hospitals and health systems, consumer health, and commercial insurance – hospitals and health systems seemingly bore the brunt of the backlash.

The current decline in trust for the hospital and health system sector was largely driven by systemic disruption, with many patients unable or unwilling to venture into facilities for non-urgent surgeries or procedures. Emergency room footage provided viewers with a glimpse of the degree of strain on the system.

What the hospital sector should take away from the survey results is that they need to think about improving their commitments to innovation and surrounding communities. It’s essential that hospitals place a greater emphasis on taking care of their employees.

A few questions to ask themselves: How are health systems showing up with how they’re acting, and with the stories they’re telling about the importance of their employee population? How are they really taking care of them and addressing the burnout we know nurses and physicians have? How are they valuing everybody, from the top of the organization to the bottom?

Pharma in the spotlight.

The pandemic, meanwhile, provided the pharma industry with an unprecedented uptick in trust and reputation. Throughout 2020, as pharma companies scrambled to get vaccines developed and approved, the industry began to be perceived as a big part of the solution. Historically, “Big Pharma” was tagged with a rep of too willing to take advantage of patients through high drug prices.

In the U.S., pharma had a nine-point increase in trust, which is considerable. People believe this sector is really driving the most critical solution for the global community right now.

Despite those gains, however, pharma remains in what Edelman characterized as “distrusted territory.”

They’ve had progress, but they haven’t risen up into trusted territory. What that says to us is that there’s so much opportunity to take these trust gains and look at what they can do in the next 12 to 24 months, to think about the lessons they’ve learned during COVID.

The study results also revealed a heightened expectation on business – including healthcare and pharma companies – to take the lead in addressing broad societal issues, like health inequities and needed improvements to the healthcare system. More than 60% of people in the U.S. said that the country would not be able to overcome its challenges without the business community stepping in.

We now have this understanding that there’s an interconnectedness between the health of our communities and our people, and the health of our economy. There has to be an appreciation going forward of how we address things to improve public health for all communities, with equity at the center.

That means pharma and healthcare companies should prioritize employee well-being and allow CEOs to be heard early and often. Just as important is the need for these organizations to create and deliver trustworthy content.

The secret for Pharma may lie on an inside-out approach where the industry harness the positive pride that employees have, and help them to share stories externally. Give them opportunities to engage and take action, and then harness the pride they have in their companies playing a bigger role when it comes to societal issues and public health issues.

Source/References

Pharma and startups have a lot to offer each other. So why aren’t we hearing more pharma-startup success stories?

Digital health has the potential to transform the pharmaceutical industry and the patient experience. Both digital health startups and pharma are eager to engage each other. Pharma continues to have significant need to leverage innovative “beyond the pill solutions.”

Digital health startups offer a wealth of potential solutions, and investors have noticed. Such startups attracted over $6.7 billion in Q1 2021 alone.

Given the potential synergy, why aren’t we hearing more pharma-startup success stories? Many say the answer is in the “pharma-startup gap,” a disconnect due to the divergent ways pharma and startups operate. Differences in size, speed, processes and culture make it challenging for pharma and startups to partner.

Pharma firms are powerful and stable, with the resources and personnel needed to develop and test their products. But their ability to change course is limited and takes time. Pharma companies are complex organizations which operate via a myriad of internal processes.

They have built sophisticated channels for connecting with healthcare providers, navigating government regulation and handling payments. Safety and quality are nonnegotiable. They must be demonstrated initially and then monitored continuously.

As a result, pharma often moves slowly and cautiously. The average time from discovery to drug approval is over 10 years. To bring that single product to market typically costs over $2 billion.

Digital health startups are the exact opposite. They are small and nimble, and can focus on developing innovative solutions without regulatory constraints or complex infrastructure. Because funding can run out, speed is of the essence. A minimal viable product (MVP) can be developed in months – not years – and for a fraction of the cost of a drug.

Moreover, their product can be changed and updated rapidly in response to user feedback. If an idea fails, a startup can quickly pivot and change course. However, startups typically lack the infrastructure needed to scale and commercialize solutions. They may also not have a firm grasp of the regulatory requirements around certain digital health solutions.

Despite their differences, pharma and digital health startups each bring a set of unique and complementary strengths. Both contribute to improving patient outcomes and healthcare experiences. Startups can develop new ideas quickly, explore iterations and test them rapidly.

Pharma has access to well-developed sales and marketing channels, as well as strong connections with providers and payers. Tremendous synergies can be achieved when pharma and startups partner. But finding each other and working together is not always easy, due to these fundamental differences.

To effectively partner and bridge the pharma-startup gap, both startups and pharma need to learn to speak the same language. For startups to successfully partner with pharma, they need to understand what drives pharma – what keeps them up at night. Meanwhile, to successfully adopt the digital health innovations of startups, pharma must understand the timing and funding pressures that many startups face.

Through partnerships, pharma companies and digital health startups can leverage their complementary strengths and accomplish what neither can do alone. But until they learn to understand each other, they will continue to be stuck on their respective sides of the pharma-startup gap.

The gap between telehealth haves and have-nots threatens to undermine the momentum toward Pharma virtual care.

Owing to a combination of stay-at-home orders and the federal government’s temporary expansion of coverage for telehealth services, COVID-19 catalyzed the adoption of telehealth. But while the surge has benefited both patients (hello, getting diagnosed on the couch) and doctors (who report having more time to speak with patients and caregivers, according to ZS research), a divide has emerged among telehealth haves and have-nots. Indeed, many of the preexisting barriers to care are being replicated in the digital realm.

So, as pharma marketers continue adapting to the world of virtual care, it’s critical to understand who telehealth isn’t reaching — and how their efforts can bolster equity in telehealth access.

The increasing divide serves to blunt industry momentum toward widespread telehealth adoption, which has obvious implications for medical marketers. At the start of the pandemic, point-of-care marketing quickly shifted from physical pamphlets and posters to two-minute informational messaging that plays in the virtual waiting room before patients connect with their doctors. Drug websites now encourage visitors to “click here to talk to your doctor,” connecting patients to vertically integrated telehealth practices.

Indeed, telehealth has become almost a marketing call to action. By way of example, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals’ Nurtec, a migraine medication that launched in 2020 with an assist from a telehealth firm that specializes in migraine care. The success of these types of activations depends on answering the question, “Did the telehealth option that brands were offering really solve a problem for the patient?”

After stratospheric levels of adoption in 2020 — IQVIA reported a 3,000% increase in users — telehealth claims have plateaued, though at a higher level than many in the industry expected. According to telehealth claims analysis by ZS, about 20% of patient visits will shift to telehealth long-term.

But none of this accounts for the telehealth users who have been left behind. In February, the NHIT helped launch the Telehealth Equity Coalition (TEC), a group of academics, telehealth providers and nonprofits working to identify barriers and advocate for public policy that increases access to telehealth among underserved groups, among them seniors, rural residents and low-income communities of colour.

The coalition’s website cites recent NHIT data on telehealth access showing that poorer and more rural states had fewer telehealth claims over the last year. Similarly, a study of COVID-related visits at New York City’s Mount Sinai Health System found that white and Asian patients were the most likely to use telehealth, while Black and Hispanic patients, people over 65 and non-English speaking patients were more likely to seek emergency room care.

First, there is the physical barrier of broadband access: The Federal Communications Commission reports that nearly 30 million Americans do not have access to high-speed internet, including 35% of people who live in rural areas.

At least 31.8 million American adults aren’t digitally literate, while many communities of colour have a history of distrust in the healthcare establishment. A recent poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation and The Undefeated found that six of 10 Black adults said they trust doctors to do what is right most of the time, compared to eight of 10 white people.

To better understand the interdisciplinary nature of these challenges, the NHIT is providing the Telehealth Equity Coalition and its members with access to the NHIT Data Fusion Center, which incorporates data sets from governmental organizations such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Federal Communications Commission. By layering these data sets on top of each other, TEC can create data visualizations that show where’s the broadband, where’s the transportation, food insecurity, etc.

So how can pharma support equitable access to telehealth? One example: patient support programs most pharma brands already have in place, which offer everything from co-pay cards to health coaches and call centers for answering patient questions.

There’s a tremendous amount of support pharma can provide to patients to cover some of these disparities that we see with telehealth and care overall. However, too often patients and physicians aren’t aware of them.

Meeting patients’ technological capabilities, through increasing the availability of audio-only calls for those without broadband and focusing on mobile-first resources, is also an important piece of the equity puzzle. Advocates are currently pushing the US federal government to reimburse audio-only telehealth at the same rates as video calls.

According to a 2019 Pew Research Center study, 26% of adults earning under $30,000 a year are “smartphone-dependent internet users.” Pharma companies could, then, think about text-based messaging and reminder programs, short videos or snackable content that will enable them to reach the patient where telehealth is happening.

Besides that, an emphasis is needed on the importance of listening to community needs and including the communities as partners in the production of health.

Above all, we need to ask communities how they want to access healthcare services and operate within that framework, rather than imposing a telehealth solution onto them.

Sources:

• May 01, 2021 Issue of MM+M – Medical Marketing and Media
• Telehealth Claims – February 2021 IQVIA Report
• Paradigms for Telehealth access – Telehealth Equity Coalition

Tags: pharma virtual care, telehealth pharma, virtual care pharma