|
|
 |
| |
|
Home > Drug News > Medical Science Liaison Metrics and Value within an OIG Compliant Environment
| |
Pharmaceutical Courses |
|
Pharmacy Technician
Allied College
Arnold, MO |
Pharmacy Technician
Allied College
Saint Ann, MO |
Pharmacy Technician
Cambridge College
Portland, OR |
Pharmacy Technician
Cambridge College
Seattle, WA |
Pharmacy Technician
High Tech Institute
Irving, TX |
Pharmacy Technician
High Tech Institute
Atlanta, GA |
Pharmacy Technician
High Tech Institute
Memphis, TN |
Pharmacy Technician
High Tech Institute
Minneapolis, MN |
Pharmacy Technician
High Tech Institute
Orlando, FL |
Pharmacy Technician
High Tech Institute
Sacramento, CA |
Pharmacy Technician
The Bryman School
Phoenix, AZ |
|
Medical Science Liaison Metrics and Value within an OIG-Compliant Environment
Pharmaceutical companies are recognizing that “MSLs work!” because MSLs’ relationship with thought leaders can become a competitive advantage. Regulatory agencies are also recognizing that “MSLs work!” because MSLs’ relationships with thought leaders can sometimes bypass compliance boundaries.
(PRWEB) November 7, 2005 -- In the last two years, pharmaceutical executives have become more open to sharing metrics-related information at industry forums. Medical Science Liaison (MSL) Managers and directors are voicing their opinions about which metrics have worked and which metrics have backfired for their MSL teams - and most agreed that activity-based metrics convey little meaning to the true contributions of their field-based medical teams. However, activity-based metrics have remained strong across the industry. This stronghold of activity-based metrics for MSL program performance and value may be inevitable when one considers how pharmaceutical companies develop MSL program objectives around activities specific to a product’s life cycle (pp. 81-84, Chin, J. and Evangelista, E., 2005. ‘Next-Generation MSL Programs: Performance Metrics and Value.‘). Depending on product maturity, the balance of research, education, and managed care activities can shift significantly.
Even as pharma companies continue to partition their MSL teams away from marketing and into medical affairs, and more MSL teams today report to medical affairs than was observed last year (pp. 85-94, ibid) - regulatory agencies aren’t taking their eyes off this visible target. The 2005 Office of Inspector General (OIG) workplan highlights FDA’s oversight of off-label drug promotion as one requiring assessment since the FDA “cannot systematically monitor manufacturers’ compliance”. Where “prohibited off-label promotion of drugs presents particular challenges and vulnerabilities” is concerned; it appears that pharmaceutical companies themselves are not immune to vulnerabilities. Can we expect comments like “Neurontin? That is so 2004! 2005 and 2006 is all about Serostim.” Of course, preliminary information around Serono’s settlement reads more like TAP’s settlement in 2001 than Pfizer’s settlement in 2004. However, with scandals and whistleblower allegations surfacing like methane bubbles in a festering swamp, it is getting hard to keep up with the pharma-culprit-du-jour.
MSL directors confronted with demonstrating MSL value within a compliant environment may have to ask, “Are some numbers more compliant than others?”
- Does setting reach-and-frequency quota make for good relationship building or imply promotional solicitations?
- Should MSLs working within an on-label-only area have their performance measured by market share change in on-label product sales?
- Would numbers that impose a quality scale offset suspicion around numbers measuring only activities?
- Could requiring MSLs to assess their thought leader development along a Likert-Scale of 1 to 5 be misinterpreted as promoting advocacy?
Companies may be installing better firewalls between medical affairs and sales- or marketing in the name of compliance, but are firewalls also risking what little progress MSL directors have made to show their MSLs’ value to internal stakeholders?
This article highlights some points from the 144-research report, ‘Next-Generation MSL Programs: Performance Metrics and Value’ by Jane Chin and Elio Evangelista. Pharmaceutical executives have used ‘Next-Generation MSL Programs: Performance Metrics and Value’ to:
- benchmark MSL program structures against competitor comanies
- justify for additional resources for MSL programs
- structure MSL programs to adjust to major trends in compliance and regulatory restrictions
- coordinate interactions with key internal stakeholders
- conserve budgets by funding key activities.
Pharmaceutical executives who have used ‘Next-Generation MSL Programs: Performance Metrics and Value’ include:
- MSL program directors
- Thought leader management directors
- Therapeutic team leaders
- Brand directors
- Product managers
- Marketing executives
- Functional area analysts and executives in Market Research, Thought Leader Development, and Advertising
- Brand team members
Back to Drug News
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|