Cover Image
市場調查報告書

醫療事務部門的管理:創新的全球策略的起動

Medical Affairs Management: Igniting Innovative Global Strategy

出版商 Cutting Edge Information 商品編碼 344966
出版日期 內容資訊 英文 476 Pages
商品交期: 最快1-2個工作天內
價格
Back to Top
醫療事務部門的管理:創新的全球策略的起動 Medical Affairs Management: Igniting Innovative Global Strategy
出版日期: 2015年10月31日 內容資訊: 英文 476 Pages
簡介

在臨床資料和科學性議論的熱門中,醫療事務 (MA) 部門的策略性其重要性也在與日俱增。過去被視為行銷工具之一的MA,現在已經成為科學資訊普及用的重要功能。

本報告提供醫療事務 (MA) 部門的結構與人員配置比較調查,提供您MA相關的主要趨勢,MA的各種影響因素分析,彙整MA部門主要的各功能預算及人員配置的最佳化策略,主要企業的MA部門簡介等相關。

摘要整理

  • 醫療事務的管理:成功的建議

確立推動組織內部調整的結構

醫療事務的預算·人員配置基準

  • 透過責任範圍的醫療事務隊預算決策
  • 支援產品·科學共同體優化的合理規模人員配置
  • 活用供應商來支持醫療事務的副功能

醫療事務結構轉換:深感興趣但也抱有疑慮的趨勢

  • 醫療事務的企業策略干預的增加
  • 證明醫療事務的價值:恆常的戰鬥
  • 醫療事務的最後目的:醫生·患者的教育
  • 遵守:在嚴厲環境中的指南

意見領袖的參加推動和醫生的需求充分

  • 醫藥學術專員團隊:培養科學性資源的醫療提供者之意見提供領袖:各種功能的KOL活動的調整
  • 喇叭計劃:重要的醫療趨勢方面醫生的教育

透過策略性預算·人員配置實現醫學通訊目標

  • 醫療資訊:提供公司內外部團隊的重要支援
  • 醫療出版物:擴大醫療知識所需的研究成果出版化
  • 醫療教育:支援有意義的信息化計劃

IIT·醫療大企業·第四階段臨床試驗:研究促進和企業的善意

  • 研究者主導型臨床實驗:企業的研究輔助和建立KOL的關係
  • 醫療援助:流程支援·有限資源的需求
  • 第四階段臨床試驗:收集產品上市後的成果·有效性資料

HEOR·管理護理:醫療事務和市場進入人員的調整

  • 為求調整醫療事務及市場進入目標,活用HEOR團隊
  • 透過促進隊伍內的通訊,強化管理護理聯絡的價值
  • 健康結果聯絡:新的醫療事務副功能

醫藥品安全性·遵守·藥事法規業務:多方面的展望強化醫療事務策略

  • 醫藥品安全性
  • 守法功能公司內部團隊用之有利資源
  • 藥事法規團隊對醫療事務策略的貢獻

醫療事務隊簡介

醫療事務部門的管理:成功的主要建議

目錄
Product Code: PH214

As healthcare stakeholders become more focused on clinical data and scientific discussions, the strategic importance of medical affairs increases. Science is progressing too quickly for many busy physicians to keep up, and - with the ease of the Internet - many patients are becoming educated consumers. Medical affairs activities are crucial for satiating these stakeholders' thirst for knowledge.

Once viewed primarily as a marketing tool, medical affairs is now a crucial function devoted to disseminating scientific information. Internal firewalls have freed medical affairs from commercial's influence at many companies, giving medical affairs autonomous decision-making power. Many companies are also beginning to recognize the value that medical affairs teams can bring to corporate strategy development.

The story of medical affairs' increasing value has some plot twists. The stringent compliance environment mandates that medical affairs teams take extra time to ensure proper documentation and - to some degree - to regulate interactions with healthcare professionals and patients. Just a few of their responsibilities include documenting:

  • Conversations with thought leaders
  • Physician payments
  • Medical grant and IIT submissions and updates
  • Standard response documents for call centers
  • Publications updates

Increased levels of scrutiny require fine attention to detail and potentially more time spent on activities.

With medical affairs' growing prominence and the challenges associated with compliance, increased budgets and headcounts would be a blessing. But despite the function's strategic growth, most medical affairs resourcing levels remain static. Static resource levels mean that successful teams will continually find ways to increase their impact using only their existing resources. For many, this trend requires teams to be innovative in how they reach out to and interact with healthcare stakeholders.

Use of This Report

This report provides executives with insights and benchmarks about medical affairs teams' overall structure and resources, as well as trends both within the function and exterior ones affecting the function. Six of the report's nine chapters also explore how teams staff and budget 15 different medical affairs subfunctions - as well as when each subfunction begins and reaches peak activity levels during a product's lifecycle. Armed with these data, medical affairs leaders will continue to innovate and prove the strategic value and overall necessity of medical affairs.

MEDICAL AFFAIRS MANAGEMENT: KEY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUCCESS

Cutting Edge Information analysts synthesized the following five key recommendations from the full breadth and depth of this project's research. These principles are signposts to help improve your medical affairs team performance. These points emphasize this study's central and most critical concepts.

ESTABLISH BALANCED FIREWALLS TO ENCOURAGE MEDICAL AFFAIRS'INVOLVEMENT IN CORPORATE STRATEGY

Medical affairs is essentially the keeper of scientific information, and these data color just about everything the company does, from sales rep conversations to marketing to portfolio planning and beyond. As the director of Top 10 Company A's global team explained, "No matter what kind of activity marketing is responsible for, at the end of the day, it touches something related to patient care. So, medical insight cannot harm."

Despite the benefits of medical affairs' involvement, a large factor in the function's ability to impact company strategies is the severity of internal firewalls and the level of communication medical affairs has with other departments. Compliance restrictions mandate a firewall between medical affairs and commercial teams. This firewall has increased medical affairs' decision-making power and its growing prominence in the company. However, the firewall can backfire if it becomes a blockade that prohibits any form of communication between medical affairs and commercial groups.

At Top 10 Company B's US team, absolutely no communication takes place between commercial and marketing. Before this firewall was established, medical affairs used to interact with marketing to help develop product launch strategy. Now, medical affairs will continue to devise product strategies - but only those with purely medical initiatives. It will not be able to add medical insights to marketing decisions, and - according to some interviewed executives - this limitation is to the detriment of the company.

Company C has a different story. To establish its firewall, the Top 50 company separated medical affairs and commercial reporting lines. But this firewall does not forbid the two functions - along with clinical development - from actively working together on company initiatives such as thought leader management. It does, however, limit the information that each function is able to see about thought leader activities, enforcing separation between the functions while still allowing them to communicate.

With Company C's fluid internal communication practices, medical affairs is also now part of the commercialization team - enabling it to intertwine medical strategies and insights with product launch strategies. Medical affairs' influence on this team is so strong that a medical director from the company observed that medical affairs "is now becoming an equal partner in the commercialization process."

These two teams offer examples for how an internal firewall can facilitate compliant communication, or render a complete disconnect between medical affairs and other functions. As such, companies that build a balanced firewall - meaning one that allows communication without breaching compliance concerns - will benefit from awarding medical affairs a greater role in corporate strategy development.

FOLLOW ECONOMIC GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY WHEN DETERMINING REGIONAL MEDICAL AFFAIRS BUDGETS

When determining resource allocation, life science organizations and medical affairs departments must consider myriad factors. Some factors are internal - including companies' available resources, product portfolio and geographic-specific initiatives and launches. However, firms must also consider external factors, such as fluctuations in local economics and changes to any country-level regulations.

According to interviewed medical affairs executives, global and US teams typically claim the bulk of available budgets. "Unfortunately, the US always gets the pot of gold - global functions and the US," explained a Company C global medical affairs director. Global teams require the monetary resources to support many groups worldwide, while US teams require the funds to operate in a large and increasingly scrutinized market. However, many executives feel that, while these teams will continue to be well-funded, companies may begin to grow funding in other areas. "I really think we'll see more of an increase in other regions, particularly in Europe and Latin America," added the Company C director.

A global medical affairs director at medical device Company E explained, "In general, the trend we see is the generic trend of the economy. If you look at the generic economy trend, there is often growth in Asia, growth in China, growth in the Middle East, growth in some countries in Latin America." Company E's medical affairs group tends to invest where the company projects the biggest therapy and business developments: If a product is about to be approved in Brazil, and the company projects high ROI on the brand, the company will invest in this country. On the other hand, if a country's economic trends turn downwards, so will the organization's investment.

Typically, Company E's medical affairs makes budgeting decisions in conjunction with its marketing organization. Despite a firewall negating a close interaction between commercial and medical departments, Company E's marketing team is better informed of general economic trends as well as the company's planned market entries - making them an invaluable resource for decision makers.

A Top 50 Company D vice president of medical affairs echoes these sentiments. The medical affairs group uses its product portfolio and country-specific offerings to guide resource allocation. "At our company, budgets are specific to brand therapies," the vice president explained. "A country could be going up in one area and down in another." This executive noted that Company D is currently focusing on increasing interest in both Latin America and the Asia-Pacific region.

ALLOCATE AMPLE DEPARTMENTAL RESOURCES TO SUPPORT MEDICAL SCIENCE LIAISON TEAMS

Pharmaceutical and device companies depend on their medical affairs departments to oversee a wide array of subfunctions. Medical affairs typically encompasses medical communications, grants and education as well as medical science liaison (MSL) teams and thought leader development. However, departments may also have oversight for health economics and outcomes research (HEOR), regulatory affairs and compliance. While medical affairs groups may have extensive oversight, teams do not support all subfunctions equally. With limited human and budget resources, companies must prioritize among teams that need the highest levels of support and those that can operate on smaller allocations.

Figure E.1 highlights the average percentage of medical affairs resources allocated to individual subfunctions. For surveyed companies, MSL teams claim the highest percentages of both budgets and total FTEs. These field forces stay very busy meeting with thought leaders, working at presentations and congresses and holding training sessions. Previous Cutting Edge Information research found that MSL teams perform an average of 16 activities for investigational products and an additional 18 activities for marketed brands. Travel also claims much of their time and expenses. At nearly 25% of total medical affairs budget and 35% of total headcount, MSL resources significantly outpace all other subfunctions' resources.

Figure E.1: Average Percentage Medical Affairs Budget Allocated and FTEs Dedicated per Subfunction

**1

After MSL teams, the average medical information group claims the second highest percentage of total headcount, at just under 15% of total medical affairs headcount. Medical education follows - at less than 10% of total FTEs. On the other hand, medical education, medical information and Phase 4 trials follow MSL teams in average percentage of overall budget. Each subfunction averages near 10% of the total medical affairs budget - which is around 15% less than MSL teams' budget allocation.

EQUIP MEDICAL INFORMATION GROUPS WITH TOOLS TO ADDRESS CHANGING THOUGHT LEADER NEEDS

Regardless of which stakeholder the medical affairs group is dealing with, communicating medical information effectively is key. Physicians increasingly look to MSLs to provide current and useful information for their practices, and patients now often come to their visits with healthcare providers having already done research online.

The availability of information is changing several critical aspects of medical affairs activities. In some cases, physicians will have the benefit of dealing with well-informed patients. A downside is that the physician must now help the patient differentiate between valuable and non-valuable online information to ensure that the patient properly understands his or her options. MSLs have an important role in working with healthcare providers to ensure that they are prepared to have these discussions with patients - not just about specific products, but also about the entire disease state and treatment pathway.

Medical information groups and call centers should also be aware of this changing dynamic in what kinds of questions will reach them. Call centers now generally field a higher proportion of complex questions, as patients no longer reach out to them to answer questions that are easily answered online. These changing medical information needs present an opportunity for some teams to innovate. For example, one team participating in this research tends to automatically escalate calls from recognized thought leaders and have their issue handled directly by management positions. Following this protocol helps the company to maximize its level of contact with the KOL.

PROVE MEDICAL AFFAIRS VALUE WITH MULTIFACTORIAL OUTCOMES-BASED KPIs

Medical affairs is gaining strategic footing in the healthcare industry, but teams still struggle to prove value to the internal organization. High-level executives like to see value in terms of revenue - an impossible and/or unethical metric for medical affairs. Instead, teams are often required to track key performance indicators (KPIs), such as:

  • Number of MSL interactions with KOLs
  • Number of healthcare stakeholders receiving medical grants
  • Number of attendees at medical education conferences
  • Number of calls a call center receives

These KPIs measure a team's activity levels, but a team can be very busy and still not make a difference. Moreover, some executives fear that teams will push themselves to achieve higher levels of activity while the actual quality of each activity will lag behind.

Instead, some medical affairs innovators are shifting to outcomes-based KPIs that measure the impact of a medical affairs activity. Rather than just counting the number of attendees at a medical education session, teams may give attendees a brief test to measure what they learned from the event or how their behavior changed a few months after the event, for example. Other non-traditional KPIs include:

  • Surveys distributed to KOLs to identify how medical affairs communications have affected their behaviors
  • The medical affairs team's ability to meet deadlines and hence show strong work discipline
  • The outcome of an MSL-KOL interaction, such as whether the thought leader submitted an IIT proposal or gets involved in a publication
  • Data about the quality of the team's thought leaders
  • The number of publications that fill previous gaps in knowledge
  • The impact of the insights that MSLs bring back to the internal organization

Importantly, a single KPI - even an outcomes-based KPI - has minimal value. A well-rounded view of a team's impact will have a combination of KPIs that present an activity from several different perspectives. For example, an executive may assess the value of medical education by looking at the quality of KOL speakers, the number of attendees and the impact the event had on them. Multifactorial KPIs like this provide both medical affairs teams and internal executives a more tangible measure of medical affairs' value.

ABOUT THIS REPORT

Cutting Edge Information conducted this research to uncover best practices and benchmarks associated with medical affairs. In developing this report, analysts collected surveys from and consulted with more than 70 medical affairs leaders at a number of top pharmaceutical, biotechnology and device companies.

DATA COLLECTION

Analysts developed the information upon which this study is based through both primary and secondary sources. Cutting Edge Information's process for collecting and analyzing information encompasses two distinct tools: quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews. Both tools are necessary for understanding not only the hard metrics included in this study, but also the reasoning behind the metrics.

Cutting Edge Information analysts began developing the quantitative survey tool used in this study by working closely with pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical device industry executives. Once the research team completed the survey design, analysts recruited study participants from pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies and medical device firms worldwide to collect data on medical affairs structures, resources and trends. The research team collected all survey data through primary research with front-line medical affairs experts. Altogether Cutting Edge Information collected and analyzed data sets from 71 companies of all sizes and geographic locations. Study participants included vice presidents, directors, managers and team leads of medical affairs, scientific affairs as well as industry experts working for high-level consultancies.

Once study participants submitted a survey, analysts used qualitative interviews to uncover more detailed information. Cutting Edge Information used telephone interviews with pharmaceutical and medical device executives and consultants to understand the challenges, solutions and best practices to successfully manage a medical affairs team. By interviewing a selection of survey respondents, Cutting Edge Information gained a deeper understanding of medical affairs management. In return for these parties' contributions, they received the study results. In addition, analysts used secondary research focused on public information related to specific companies, medical affairs activities and regulations.

COMPANY BLINDING

To ensure that Cutting Edge Information protects the identities and privacy of all study participants, this research does not name the companies or products it examines, nor does it link specific companies with therapeutic areas. Company blinding is a critical device that allows survey respondents to comfortably provide accurate data for studies such as this one.

DATA BREAKDOWN

This study divides surveyed teams into three main categories based on their regional purview. The regional categories used to analyze the data are:

  • Global : Teams that are responsible for medical affairs activities in multiple countries around the world.
  • US : Teams whose responsibilities are limited to the company's medical affairs activities in the United States. Some teams categorized as US teams are also responsible for Canada as well as the US.
  • Country-Level : Teams whose responsibilities are limited to the company's medical affairs operations in a specific region or country other than the United States.

Within each of these regions, the data are further categorized to differentiate by company size. Analysts divided surveyed pharmaceutical and biotech companies into three sizes based on Pharmaceutical Executive magazine's 2014 assessment. The company size classifications used to analyze the data are:

  • Top 25 : Pharmaceutical and biotech companies ranked in the Top 25 according to Pharmaceutical Executive. Generally, these companies achieve annual drug revenues above $18 billion annually.
  • Top 50 : Pharmaceutical and biotech companies ranked between 11 and 50. Generally, these companies achieve annual drug revenues greater than $2 billion annually.
  • Small : Pharmaceutical and biotech companies ranked outside of the Top 50. Generally, these companies achieve annual drug revenues less than $2 billion annually.
  • Medical Device : Medical device companies are those that focus on the manufacturing and development of medical equipment such as implantable devices, diagnostic products or other medical devices.

Country-level teams are also divided by the countries or regions for which they are responsible. The country categories are:

  • Asia : This term refers to countries in Asia as well as Asia Pacific, such as Australia.
  • EMEA : Countries in the EMEA are situated in the Middle East and Africa.
  • EU : This term includes all countries that are in Europe but not necessarily in the European Union. Russia and Turkey are also included.
  • Latin America (Lat. Am.) : Latin American countries consist of all countries in South and Central America, including Mexico.
  • North America (N. Am.) : North American countries exclude the United States. In essence, North America means Canada.

DEFINITIONS

Terms used in this report may differ from their usage elsewhere. For clarity, the terms are defined below:

  • Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) : One FTE is equivalent to one dedicated individual working full-time at a specific function, though it may in fact be a combination of two or more people each working part-time on one task.
  • Field-Based : This term refers to subfunctions whose primary responsibility is to venture outside of the company to interact with thought leaders or payers. Field-based subfunctions include MSLs, MCLs and HOLs.
  • Drug Safety/Pharmacovigilance : For readability, CEI analysts used these terms interchangeably throughout the report.
  • Investigator-Initiated Trial (IIT) : An IIT is a trial or study that is both sponsored and registered by the investigator. Common terms for IIT include:
    • Investigator-sponsored trial (IST)
    • Investigator-sponsored study (ISS)
    • Investigator-sponsored research (ISR)
    • Investigator-initiated research (IIR)
    • Investigator initiated-sponsored research (IISR)
  • Medical Science Liaison (MSL) : Medical science liaisons are responsible for engaging healthcare professionals in scientific exchanges. Common terms for MSL include:
    • Regional medical liaison (RML)
    • Clinical science liaison (CSL)
    • Field medical advisor

Table of Contents

  • Executive Summary
  • Medical Affairs Management: Key Recommendations for Success
  • Establishing Structures to Facilitate Internal Coordination
  • Benchmarking Medical Affairs Budgets and Staffing
  • Determining Medical Affairs Team Budgets by Scope of Responsibility
  • Right-Sizing Medical Affairs Staffing to Optimize Product and Scientific Community Support
  • Leveraging Vendors to Support Medical Affairs Subfunctions
  • The Transformation of Medical Affairs: Exciting and Concerning Trends
  • Medical Affairs' Increasing Involvement in Corporate Strategy
  • Proving Medical Affairs Value: The Constant Battle
  • The End Goal of Medical Affairs: Educating Physicians and Patients
  • Compliance: Navigating a Challenging Landscape
  • Cultivating Thought Leader Engagement and Meeting Physician Needs
  • Medical Science Liaison Teams: Offering a Valuable Scientific Resource to Healthcare Providers
  • Thought Leader Development: Coordinating KOL Activities Across Multiple Functions
  • Speaker Programs: Educating Physicians on Important Treatment Trends
  • Accomplish Medical Communications Objectives through Strategic Budget and Staffing Allocations
  • Medical Information: Providing Invaluable Support for Internal and External Teams
  • Medical Publications: Publicizing Study Outcomes to Expand Medical Knowledge
  • Medical Education: Supporting Meaningful and Informative Programs
  • IITs, Medical Grants and Phase 4 Trials: Promoting Research and Corporate Goodwill
  • Investigator-Initiated Trials: Supplementing Company Research and Building KOL Relationships
  • Medical Grants: Process Support and Limited Resource Needs
  • Phase 4 Trials: Collecting Outcomes and Efficacy Data After Product Launch
  • HEOR and Managed Care: Coordinating Medical Affairs and Market Access Personnel
  • Leverage Health Economics and Outcomes Research Teams to Consolidate Medical Affairs and Market Access Objectives
  • Enhance the Value of Managed Care Liaisons by Facilitating Interteam Communication
  • Health Outcomes Liaisons: Emerging Medical Affairs Subfunction
  • Drug Safety, Compliance and Regulatory Affairs: Diverse Perspectives Bolster Medical Affairs Strategy
  • Drug Safety: Autonomous Globally, Medical Affairs-Owned Locally
  • Compliance Functions: a Valuable Resource for In-House Teams
  • Contributions from Regulatory Teams Guide Medical Affairs Strategy
  • Medical Affairs Team Profiles
  • Medical Affairs Management: Key Recommendations for Success
  • Figure E.1: Average Percentage Medical Affairs Budget Allocated and FTEs Dedicated per Subfunction
  • Establishing Structures to Facilitate Internal Coordination
  • Figure 1.1: Functional Oversight of Medical Affairs, by Team Region
  • Figure 1.2: Functional Oversight of Medical Affairs, by Company Size
  • Figure 1.3: Top 50 Company D's Medical Affairs Reporting Structure
  • Figure 1.4: Device Company E's Medical Affairs Reporting Structure
  • Figure 1.5: Medical Affairs Structure, by Team Region
  • Figure 1.6: Medical Affairs Structure, by Company Size
  • Figure 1.7: Top 10 Company B's Medical Affairs Team Reporting
  • Figure 1.8: Title of Medical Affairs Head, by Team Region
  • Figure 1.9: Title of Medical Affairs Head, by Company Size
  • Figure 1.10: Percentage of Medical Affairs Teams Responsible for Specific Subfunctions: All Teams
  • Figure 1.11: Percentage of Medical Affairs Teams Responsible for Specific Subfunctions: Global Teams
  • Figure 1.12: Percentage of Medical Affairs Teams Responsible for Specific Subfunctions: US Teams
  • Figure 1.13: Percentage of Medical Affairs Teams Responsible for Specific Subfunctions: Country- Level Teams
  • Figure 1.14: Range and Average Number of Products Medical Affairs Teams Support, by Team Region
  • Figure 1.15: Range and Average Number of Products Medical Affairs Teams Support, by Team Region
  • Figure 1.16: Percentage of Investigational and Marketed Products Medical Affairs Teams Support
  • Figure 1.17: Number of Marketed and Investigational Products Medical Affairs Teams Support: Global Teams
  • Figure 1.18: Number of Marketed and Investigational Products Medical Affairs Teams Support: US Teams
  • Figure 1.19: Number of Marketed and Investigational Products Medical Affairs Teams Support: Country-Level Teams
  • Benchmarking Medical Affairs Budgets and Staffing
  • Figure 2.1: Average Budget and FTEs per Subfunction
  • Determining Medical Affairs Team Budgets by Scope of Responsibility
  • Figure 2.2: Average Budget Allocations to Specific Medical Affairs Subfunctions, by
  • Team Region
  • Figure 2.3: Range and Average of Total Medical Affairs Budget, by Year (2014-2016): Global Teams
  • Figure 2.4: Total Medical Affairs Budget for 2014: Global Teams
  • Figure 2.5: Total Medical Affairs Budget for 2015: Global Teams
  • Figure 2.6: Total Medical Affairs Budget for 2016: Global Teams
  • Figure 2.7: Range and Average of Total Medical Affairs Budget, by Year (2014-2016): US Teams
  • Figure 2.8: Total Medical Affairs Budget for 2014: US Teams
  • Figure 2.9: Total Medical Affairs Budget for 2015: US Teams
  • Figure 2.10: Total Medical Affairs Budget for 2016: US Teams
  • Figure 2.11: Range and Average of Total Medical Affairs Budget, by Year (2014-2016): Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 2.12: Total Medical Affairs Budget for 2014: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 2.13: Total Medical Affairs Budget for 2015: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 2.14: Total Medical Affairs Budget for 2016: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 2.15: Range and Average of Medical Affairs Budget per Supported Product, by Team Region
  • Figure 2.16: Medical Affairs 2015 Budget per Supported Product, by Company: Global Teams
  • Figure 2.17: Medical Affairs 2015 Budget per Supported Product, by Company: US Teams
  • Figure 2.18: Medical Affairs 2015 Budget per Supported Product, by Company: Country-Level Teams
  • Right-Sizing Medical Affairs Staffing to Optimize Product and Scientific Community Support
  • Figure 2.19: Range and Average of Medical Affairs Staffing for 2015 (Excluding Field-Based Personnel)
  • Figure 2.20: Range and Average of Medical Affairs Staffing for 2016 (Excluding Field-Based Personnel)
  • Figure 2.21 Medical Affairs Staffing for 2015 and 2016 (Excluding Field-Based Personnel): Global Teams
  • Figure 2.22: Medical Affairs Staffing for 2015 and 2016 (Excluding Field-Based Personnel): US Teams
  • Figure 2.23: Medical Affairs Staffing for 2015 and 2016 (Excluding Field-Based Personnel): Country- Level Teams
  • Figure 2.24: Range and Average of Medical Affairs Budget per FTE for 2015 (Excluding Field-Based Personnel)
  • Figure 2.25: Medical Affairs 2015 Budget per FTE (Excluding Field-Based Personnel): Global Teams
  • Figure 2.26: Medical Affairs 2015 Budget per FTE (Excluding Field-Based Personnel): US Teams
  • Figure 2.27: Medical Affairs 2015 Budget per FTE (Excluding Field-Based Personnel): Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 2.28: Percentage of Teams that Outsource Budgets for One or More Medical Affairs Subfunctions, by Team Region
  • Leveraging Vendors to Support Medical Affairs Subfunctions
  • Figure 2.29: Percentage of Global Teams Outsourcing Budget for Specific Medical Affairs Subfunctions
  • Figure 2.30: Percentage of US Teams Outsourcing Budget for Specific Medical Affairs Subfunctions
  • Figure 2.31: Percentage of Country-Level Teams Outsourcing Budget for Specific Medical Affairs Subfunctions
  • Figure 2.32: Range and Average Number of Outsourced Medical Affairs FTEs, by Team Region
  • Figure 2.33: Number of Outsourced Medical Affairs FTEs, by Company: Global Teams
  • Figure 2.34: Number of Outsourced Medical Affairs FTEs, by Company: US Teams
  • Figure 2.35: Number of Outsourced Medical Affairs FTEs, by Company: Country-Level Teams
  • The Transformation of Medical Affairs: Exciting and Concerning Trends
  • Figure 3.1: Exciting Trends in Medical Affairs
  • Figure 3.2: Concerning Trends in Medical Affairs
  • Medical Affairs' Increasing Involvement in Corporate Strategy
  • Figure 3.3: Exciting Trends: Medical Affairs' Increasing Role in Corporate Strategy
  • Figure 3.4: Concerning Trends: Misconceptions About Medical Affairs Being Commercial
  • Proving Medical Affairs Value: The Constant Battle
  • Figure 3.5: Type of Database Teams Use to Track Physician Interactions
  • The End Goal of Medical Affairs: Educating Physicians and Patients
  • Figure 3.6: Exciting Trends: Increased Emphasis on Scientific Exchanges with Healthcare Professionals
  • Figure 3.7: Exciting Trends: Emphasis on New Types of Data and Evidence
  • Figure 3.8: Concerning Trends: Misuse of Scientific Data
  • Figure 3.9: Exciting Trends: Use of New Technology to Facilitate Interactions with Patients and HCPs
  • Compliance: Navigating a Challenging Landscape
  • Figure 3.10: Concerning Trends: Compliance and Overregulation
  • Figure 3.11: Concerning Trends: Difficulty Interacting with KOLs Because of Compliance
  • Cultivating Thought Leader Engagement and Meeting Physician Needs
  • Figure 4.1: Average Ranking of Factors Used to Determine a Physician's Scope of Influence
  • Medical Science Liaison Teams: Offering a Valuable Scientific Resource to Healthcare Providers
  • Figure 4.2: Percentage of Medical Affairs Teams with Responsibility Over MSL Teams
  • Figure 4.3: Percentage of Medical Affairs Budget Allocated to MSL Teams, by Company: Global Teams
  • Figure 4.4: MSL Team 2015 Budget, by Company: Global Teams
  • Figure 4.5: MSL Team Budget Change from 2015 to 2016: Global Teams
  • Figure 4.6: MSL Team Budget Outsourcing: Global Teams
  • Figure 4.7: Number of FTEs Dedicated to MSL Teams in 2015, by Company: Global Teams
  • Figure 4.8: Change in Staffing for MSL Teams from 2015 to 2016: Global Teams
  • Figure 4.9: Percentage of Medical Affairs Budget Allocated to MSL Teams, by Company: US Teams
  • Figure 4.10: MSL Team 2015 Budget, by Company: US Teams
  • Figure 4.11: MSL Team Budget Change from 2015 to 2016: US Teams
  • Figure 4.12: MSL Team Budget Outsourcing: US Teams
  • Figure 4.13: Number of FTEs Dedicated to MSL Teams in 2015, by Company: US Teams
  • Figure 4.14: Change in Staffing for MSL Teams from 2015 to 2016: US Teams
  • Figure 4.15: Percentage of Medical Affairs Budget Allocated to MSL Teams, by Company: Country- Level Teams
  • Figure 4.16: MSL Team 2015 Budget, by Company: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 4.17: MSL Team Budget Change from 2015 to 2016: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 4.18: MSL Team Budget Outsourcing: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 4.19: Number of FTEs Dedicated to MSL Teams in 2015, by Company: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 4.20: Change in Staffing for MSL Teams from 2015 to 2016: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 4.21: Development Stage of Activity Start, by Team Region: MSL Teams
  • Figure 4.22: Development Stage of Peak Activity, by Team Region: MSL Teams
  • Figure 4.23: Activity Start and Peak for MSL Teams, by Company: Global Teams
  • Figure 4.24: Activity Start and Peak for MSL Teams, by Company: US Teams
  • Figure 4.25: Activity Start and Peak for MSL Teams, by Company: Country-Level Teams
  • Thought Leader Development: Coordinating KOL Activities Across Multiple Functions
  • Figure 4.26: Percentage of Medical Affairs Teams with Responsibility Over Thought Leader Development
  • Figure 4.27: Percentage of Medical Affairs Budget Allocated to Thought Leader Development, by Company: Global Teams
  • Figure 4.28: Thought Leader Development 2015 Budget, by Company: Global Teams
  • Figure 4.29: Thought Leader Development Budget Change from 2015 to 2016: Global Teams
  • Figure 4.30: Thought Leader Development Budget Outsourcing: Global Teams
  • Figure 4.31: Number of FTEs Dedicated to Thought Leader Development in 2015, by Company: Global Teams
  • Figure 4.32: Change in Staffing for Thought Leader Development from 2015 to 2016: Global Teams
  • Figure 4.33: Percentage of Medical Affairs Budget Allocated to Thought Leader Development, by Company: US Teams
  • Figure 4.34: Thought Leader Development 2015 Budget, by Company: US Teams
  • Figure 4.35: Thought Leader Development Budget Change from 2015 to 2016: US Teams
  • Figure 4.36: Number of FTEs Dedicated to Thought Leader Development in 2015, by Company: US Teams
  • Figure 4.37: Change in Staffing for Thought Leader Development from 2015 to 2016: US Teams
  • Figure 4.38: Percentage of Medical Affairs Budget Allocated to Thought Leader Development, by Company: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 4.39: Thought Leader Development 2015 Budget, by Company: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 4.40: Thought Leader Development Budget Change from 2015 to 2016: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 4.41: Thought Leader Development Budget Outsourcing: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 4.42: Number of FTEs Dedicated to Thought Leader Development in 2015, by Company: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 4.43: Development Stage of Activity Start, by Team Region: Thought Leader Development
  • Figure 4.44: Development Stage of Peak Activity, by Team Region: Thought Leader Development
  • Figure 4.45: Activity Start and Peak for Thought Leader Development, by Company: Global Teams
  • Figure 4.46: Activity Start and Peak for Thought Leader Development, by Company: US Teams
  • Figure 4.47: Activity Start and Peak for Thought Leader Development, by Company: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 4.48: Percentage of Medical Affairs Teams with Responsibility Over Speaker Programs
  • Speaker Programs: Educating Physicians on Important Treatment Trends
  • Figure 4.49: Percentage of Medical Affairs Budget Allocated to Speaker Programs, by Company: Global Teams
  • Figure 4.50: Speaker Programs 2015 Budget, by Company: Global Teams
  • Figure 4.51: Speaker Programs Budget Change from 2015 to 2016: Global Teams
  • Figure 4.52: Speaker Programs Budget Outsourcing: Global Teams
  • Figure 4.53: Number of FTEs Dedicated to Speaker Programs in 2015, by Company: Global Teams
  • Figure 4.54: Change in Staffing for Speaker Programs from 2015 to 2016: Global Teams
  • Figure 4.55: US Speaker Programs Team: Small Company 31
  • Figure 4.56: Percentage of Medical Affairs Budget Allocated to Speaker Programs, by Company: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 4.57: Speaker Programs 2015 Budget, by Company: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 4.58: Speaker Programs Budget Change from 2015 to 2016: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 4.59: Speaker Programs Budget Outsourcing: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 4.60: Number of FTEs Dedicated to Speaker Programs in 2015, by Company: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 4.61: Development Stage of Activity Start, by Team Region: Speaker Programs
  • Figure 4.62: Development Stage of Peak Activity, by Team Region: Speaker Programs
  • Figure 4.63: Activity Start and Peak for Speaker Programs, by Company: Global Teams
  • Figure 4.64: Activity Start and Peak for Speaker Programs, by Company: US and Country-Level Teams
  • Accomplish Medical Communications Objectives through Strategic Budget and Staffing Allocations
  • Figure 5.1: Perception of How Technology Is Affecting Medical Communication
  • Medical Information: Providing Invaluable Support for Internal and External Teams
  • Figure 5.2: Percentage of Medical Affairs Teams with Responsibility Over Medical Information
  • Figure 5.3: Percentage of Medical Affairs Budget Allocated to Medical Information, by Company: Global Teams
  • Figure 5.4: Medical Information 2015 Budget, by Company: Global Teams
  • Figure 5.5: Medical Information Budget Change from 2015 to 2016: Global Teams
  • Figure 5.6: Medical Information Budget Outsourcing: Global Teams
  • Figure 5.7: Number of FTEs Dedicated to Medical Information in 2015, by Company: Global Teams
  • Figure 5.8: Change in Staffing for Medical Information from 2015 to 2016: Global Teams
  • Figure 5.9: Percentage of Medical Affairs Budget Allocated to Medical Information, by Company: US Teams
  • Figure 5.10: Medical Information 2015 Budget, by Company: US Teams
  • Figure 5.11: Medical Information Budget Outsourcing: US Teams
  • Figure 5.12: Number of FTEs Dedicated to Medical Information in 2015, by Company: US Teams
  • Figure 5.13: Change in Staffing for Medical Information from 2015 to 2016: US Teams
  • Figure 5.14: Percentage of Medical Affairs Budget Allocated to Medical Information, by Company: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 5.16: Medical Information Budget Change from 2015 to 2016: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 5.15: Medical Information 2015 Budget, by Company: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 5.17: Medical Information Budget Outsourcing: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 5.18: Number of FTEs Dedicated to Medical Information in 2015, by Company: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 5.19: Development Stage of Activity Start, by Team Region: Medical Information
  • Figure 5.20: Development Stage of Peak Activity, by Team Region: Medical Information
  • Figure 5.21: Activity Start and Peak for Medical Information, by Company: Global Teams
  • Figure 5.22: Activity Start and Peak for Medical Information, by Company: US Teams
  • Figure 5.23: Activity Start and Peak for Medical Information, by Company: Country-Level Teams
  • Medical Publications: Publicizing Study Outcomes to Expand Medical Knowledge
  • Figure 5.24: Percentage of Medical Affairs Teams with Responsibility Over Medical Publications
  • Figure 5.25: Percentage of Medical Affairs Budget Allocated to Medical Publications, by Company: Global Teams
  • Figure 5.26: Medical Publications 2015 Budget, by Company: Global Teams
  • Figure 5.27: Medical Publications Budget Change from 2015 to 2016: Global Teams
  • Figure 5.28: Medical Publications Budget Outsourcing: Global Teams
  • Figure 5.29: Number of FTEs Dedicated to Medical Publications in 2015, by Company: Global Teams
  • Figure 5.30: Change in Staffing for Medical Publications from 2015 to 2016: Global Teams
  • Figure 5.31: Percentage of Medical Affairs Budget Allocated to Medical Publications, by Company: US Teams
  • Figure 5.32: Medical Publications 2015 Budget, by Company: US Teams
  • Figure 5.33: Medical Publications Budget Outsourcing: US Teams
  • Figure 5.34: Number of FTEs Dedicated to Medical Publications in 2015, by Company: US Teams
  • Figure 5.35: Change in Staffing for Medical Publications from 2015 to 2016: US Teams
  • Figure 5.36: Percentage of Medical Affairs Budget Allocated to Medical Publications, by Company: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 5.37: Medical Publications 2015 Budget, by Company: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 5.38: Medical Publications Budget Change from 2015 to 2016: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 5.39: Medical Publications Budget Outsourcing: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 5.40: Number of FTEs Dedicated to Medical Publications in 2015, by Company: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 5.41: Change in Staffing for Medical Publications from 2015 to 2016: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 5.42: Development Stage of Activity Start, by Team Region: Medical Publications
  • Figure 5.43: Development Stage of Peak Activity, by Team Region: Medical Publications
  • Figure 5.44: Activity Start and Peak for Medical Publications, by Company: Global Teams
  • Figure 5.45: Activity Start and Peak for Medical Publications, by Company: US Teams
  • Figure 5.46: Activity Start and Peak for Medical Publications, by Company: Country-Level Teams
  • Medical Education: Supporting Meaningful and Informative Programs
  • Figure 5.47: Percentage of Medical Affairs Teams with Responsibility Over Medical Education
  • Figure 5.48: Percentage of Medical Affairs Budget Allocated to Medical Education, by Company: Global Teams
  • Figure 5.49: Medical Education 2015 Budget, by Company: Global Teams
  • Figure 5.50: Medical Education Budget Change from 2015 to 2016: Global Teams
  • Figure 5.51: Medical Education Budget Outsourcing: Global Teams
  • Figure 5.52: Number of FTEs Dedicated to Medical Education in 2015, by Company: Global Teams
  • Figure 5.53: Change in Staffing for Medical Education from 2015 to 2016: Global Teams
  • Figure 5.54: Percentage of Medical Affairs Budget Allocated to Medical Education, by Company: US Teams
  • Figure 5.55: Medical Education 2015 Budget, by Company: US Teams
  • Figure 5.56: Medical Education Budget Change from 2015 to 2016: US Teams
  • Figure 5.57: Medical Education Budget Outsourcing: US Teams
  • Figure 5.58: Number of FTEs Dedicated to Medical Education in 2015, by Company: US Teams
  • Figure 5.59: Change in Staffing for Medical Education from 2015 to 2016: US Teams
  • Figure 5.60: Percentage of Medical Affairs Budget Allocated to Medical Education, by Company: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 5.62: Medical Education Budget Change from 2015 to 2016: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 5.61: Medical Education 2015 Budget, by Company: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 5.63: Medical Education Budget Outsourcing: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 5.64: Number of FTEs Dedicated to Medical Education in 2015, by Company: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 5.65: Change in Staffing for Medical Education from 2015 to 2016: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 5.66: Development Stage of Activity Start, by Team Region: Medical Education
  • Figure 5.67: Development Stage of Peak Activity, by Team Region: Medical Education
  • Figure 5.68: Activity Start and Peak for Medical Education, by Company: Global Teams
  • Figure 5.69: Activity Start and Peak for Medical Education, by Company: US Teams
  • Figure 5.70: Activity Start and Peak for Medical Education, by Company: Country-Level Teams
  • IITs, Medical Grants and Phase 4 Trials: Promoting Research and Corporate Goodwill
  • Figure 6.1: Average Percentage of Phase 4 Trials and IITs Containing Certain Research Aspects
  • Investigator-Initiated Trials: Supplementing Company Research and Building KOL Relationships
  • Figure 6.2: Percentage of Medical Affairs Teams with Responsibility Over IITs
  • Figure 6.3: Percentage of Medical Affairs Budget Allocated to IITs, by Company: Global Teams
  • Figure 6.4: IITs 2015 Budget, by Company: Global Teams
  • Figure 6.5: IITs Budget Change from 2015 to 2016: Global Teams
  • Figure 6.6: IITs Budget Outsourcing: Global Teams
  • Figure 6.7: Number of FTEs Dedicated to IITs in 2015, by Company: Global Teams
  • Figure 6.8: Change in Staffing for IITs from 2015 to 2016: Global Teams
  • Figure 6.9: Percentage of Medical Affairs Budget Allocated to IITs, by Company: US Teams
  • Figure 6.10: IITs 2015 Budget, by Company: US Teams
  • Figure 6.11: IITs Budget Change from 2015 to 2016: US Teams
  • Figure 6.12: IITs Budget Outsourcing: US Teams
  • Figure 6.13: Number of FTEs Dedicated to IITs in 2015, by Company: US Teams
  • Figure 6.14: Change in Staffing for IITs from 2015 to 2016: US Teams
  • Figure 6.15: Percentage of Medical Affairs Budget Allocated to IITs, by Company: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 6.16: IITs 2015 Budget, by Company: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 6.17: IITs Budget Change from 2015 to 2016: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 6.18: IITs Budget Outsourcing: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 6.19: Number of FTEs Dedicated to IITs in 2015, by Company: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 6.20: Development Stage of Activity Start, by Team Region: IITs
  • Figure 6.21: Development Stage of Peak Activity, by Team Region: IITs
  • Figure 6.22: Activity Start and Peak for IITs, by Company: Global Teams
  • Figure 6.23: Activity Start and Peak for IITs, by Company: US Teams
  • Figure 6.24: Activity Start and Peak for IITs, by Company: Country-Level Teams
  • Medical Grants: Process Support and Limited Resource Needs
  • Figure 6.25: Percentage of Medical Affairs Teams with Responsibility Over Medical Grants
  • Figure 6.26: Percentage of Medical Affairs Budget Allocated to Medical Grants, by Company: Global Teams
  • Figure 6.27: Medical Grants 2015 Budget, by Company: Global Teams
  • Figure 6.28: Medical Grants Budget Change from 2015 to 2016: Global Teams
  • Figure 6.29: Number of FTEs Dedicated to Medical Grants in 2015, by Company: Global Teams
  • Figure 6.30: Change in Staffing for Medical Grants from 2015 to 2016: Global Teams
  • Figure 6.31: Percentage of Medical Affairs Budget Allocated to Medical Grants, by Company: US Teams
  • Figure 6.32: Medical Grants 2015 Budget, by Company: US Teams
  • Figure 6.33: Medical Grants Budget Change from 2015 to 2016: US Teams
  • Figure 6.34: Number of FTEs Dedicated to Medical Grants in 2015, by Company: US Teams
  • Figure 6.35: Change in Staffing for Medical Grants from 2015 to 2016: US Teams
  • Figure 6.36: Percentage of Medical Affairs Budget Allocated to Medical Grants, by Company: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 6.37: Medical Grants 2015 Budget, by Company: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 6.38: Medical Grants Budget Change from 2015 to 2016: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 6.39: Medical Grants Budget Outsourcing: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 6.40: Number of FTEs Dedicated to Medical Grants in 2015, by Company: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 6.41: Development Stage of Activity Start, by Team Region: Medical Grants
  • Figure 6.42: Development Stage of Peak Activity, by Team Region: Medical Grants
  • Figure 6.43: Activity Start and Peak for Medical Grants, by Company: Global Teams
  • Figure 6.44: Activity Start and Peak for Medical Grants, by Company: US Teams
  • Figure 6.45: Activity Start and Peak for Medical Grants, by Company: Country-Level Teams
  • Phase 4 Trials: Collecting Outcomes and Efficacy Data After Product Launch
  • Figure 6.46: Perception of Where Phase 4 Trials Belong
  • Figure 6.47: Percentage of Medical Affairs Teams with Responsibility Over Phase 4 Trials
  • Figure 6.48: Percentage of Medical Affairs Budget Allocated to Phase 4 Trials, by Company: Global Teams
  • Figure 6.49: Phase 4 Trials 2015 Budget, by Company: Global Teams
  • Figure 6.50: Phase 4 Trials Budget Outsourcing: Global Teams
  • Figure 6.51: Number of FTEs Dedicated to Phase 4 Trials in 2015, by Company: Global Teams
  • Figure 6.52: Percentage of Medical Affairs Budget Allocated to Phase 4 Trials, by Company: US Teams
  • Figure 6.53: Phase 4 Trials 2015 Budget, by Company: US Teams
  • Figure 6.54: Phase 4 Trials Budget Change from 2015 to 2016: US Teams
  • Figure 6.55: Phase 4 Trials Budget Outsourcing: US Teams
  • Figure 6.56: Number of FTEs Dedicated to Phase 4 Trials in 2015, by Company: US Teams
  • Figure 6.57: Change in Staffing for Phase 4 Trials from 2015 to 2016: US Teams
  • Figure 6.58: Percentage of Medical Affairs Budget Allocated to Phase 4 Trials, by Company: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 6.59: Phase 4 Trials 2015 Budget, by Company: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 6.60: Phase 4 Trials Budget Change from 2015 to 2016: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 6.61: Phase 4 Trials Budget Outsourcing: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 6.62: Number of FTEs Dedicated to Phase 4 Trials in 2015, by Company: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 6.63: Development Stage of Activity Start, by Team Region: Phase 4 Trials
  • Figure 6.64: Development Stage of Peak Activity, by Team Region: Phase 4 Trials
  • Figure 6.65: Activity Start and Peak for Phase 4 Trials, by Company: Global Teams
  • Figure 6.66: Activity Start and Peak for Phase 4 Trials, by Company: US Teams
  • Figure 6.67: Activity Start and Peak for Phase 4 Trials, by Company: Country-Level Teams
  • HEOR and Managed Care: Coordinating Medical Affairs and Market Access Personnel
  • Leverage Health Economics and Outcomes Research Teams to Consolidate Medical Affairs and Market Access Objectives
  • Figure 7.1: Perception of Where HEOR Belongs
  • Figure 7.2: Percentage of Medical Affairs Teams with Responsibility Over HEOR
  • Figure 7.3: Percentage of Medical Affairs Budget Allocated to HEOR, by Company: Global Teams
  • Figure 7.4: HEOR 2015 Budget, by Company: Global Teams
  • Figure 7.5: HEOR Budget Outsourcing: Global Teams
  • Figure 7.6: Number of FTEs Dedicated to HEOR in 2015, by Company: Global Teams
  • Figure 7.7: Change in Staffing for HEOR from 2015 to 2016: Global Teams
  • Figure 7.8: Percentage of Medical Affairs Budget Allocated to HEOR, by Company: US Teams
  • Figure 7.9: HEOR 2015 Budget, by Company: US Teams
  • Figure 7.10: HEOR Budget Change from 2015 to 2016: US Teams
  • Figure 7.11: HEOR Budget Outsourcing: US Teams
  • Figure 7.12: Number of FTEs Dedicated to HEOR in 2015, by Company: US Teams
  • Figure 7.13: Percentage of Medical Affairs Budget Allocated to HEOR, by Company: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 7.14: HEOR 2015 Budget, by Company: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 7.15: HEOR Budget Change from 2015 to 2016: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 7.16: HEOR Budget Outsourcing: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 7.17: Number of FTEs Dedicated to HEOR in 2015, by Company: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 7.18: Development Stage of Activity Start, by Team Region: HEOR
  • Figure 7.19: Development Stage of Peak Activity, by Team Region: HEOR
  • Figure 7.20: Activity Start and Peak for HEOR, by Team Region and Company
  • Enhance the Value of Managed Care Liaisons by Facilitating Interteam Communication
  • Figure 7.21: Percentage of Medical Affairs Teams with Responsibility Over MCLs
  • Figure 7.22: MCL Team Budgets: Global Teams
  • Figure 7.23: MCL Team Budget Outsourcing: Global Teams
  • Figure 7.24: Number of FTEs Dedicated to MCL Teams in 2015, by Company: Global Teams
  • Figure 7.25: Percentage of Medical Affairs Budget Allocated to MCL Teams, by Company: US Teams
  • Figure 7.26: MCL Team 2015 Budget, by Company: US Teams
  • Figure 7.27: MCL Team Budget Change from 2015 to 2016: US Teams
  • Figure 7.28: MCL Team Budget Outsourcing: US Teams
  • Figure 7.29: Number of FTEs Dedicated to MCL Teams in 2015, by Company: US Teams
  • Figure 7.30: Change in Staffing for MCL Teams from 2015 to 2016: US Teams
  • Figure 7.31: Country-Level MCL Team: Top 50 Company 61
  • Figure 7.32: Development Stage of Activity Start: MCL Teams
  • Figure 7.33: Development Stage of Peak Activity: MCL Teams
  • Figure 7.34: Activity Start and Peak for MCL Teams, by Team Region and Company
  • Health Outcomes Liaisons: Emerging Medical Affairs Subfunction
  • Figure 7.35: Percentage of Medical Affairs Teams with Responsibility Over HOLs
  • Figure 7.36: Global HOL Team: Top 50 Company 9
  • Figure 7.37: Percentage of Medical Affairs Budget Allocated to HOL Teams, by Company: US Teams
  • Figure 7.38: HOL Team 2015 Budget, by Company: US Teams
  • Figure 7.39: HOL Team Budget Outsourcing: US Teams
  • Figure 7.40: Number of FTEs Dedicated to HOL Teams in 2015, by Company: US Teams
  • Figure 7.41: Development Stage of Activity Start: HOL Teams
  • Figure 7.42: Development Stage of Peak Activity: HOL Teams
  • Figure 7.43: Activity Start and Peak for HOL Teams, by Team Region and Company
  • Drug Safety, Compliance and Regulatory Affairs: Diverse Perspectives Bolster Medical Affairs Strategy
  • Drug Safety: Autonomous Globally, Medical Affairs-Owned Locally
  • Figure 8.1: Perception of Where Drug Safety Belongs
  • Figure 8.2: Percentage of Medical Affairs Teams with Responsibility Over Drug Safety
  • Figure 8.3: Global Drug Safety Team: Small Company 12
  • Figure 8.4: Drug Safety Budgets: US Teams
  • Figure 8.5: Drug Safety Budget Outsourcing: US Teams
  • Figure 8.6: Number of FTEs Dedicated to Drug Safety in 2015, by Company: US Teams
  • Figure 8.7: Percentage of Medical Affairs Budget Allocated to Drug Safety, by Company: Country- Level Teams
  • Figure 8.8: Drug Safety 2015 Budget, by Company: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 8.9: Drug Safety Budget Change from 2015 to 2016: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 8.10: Drug Safety Budget Outsourcing: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 8.11: Number of FTEs Dedicated to Drug Safety in 2015, by Company: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 8.12: Change in Staffing for Drug Safety from 2015 to 2016: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 8.13: Development Stage of Activity Start, by Team Region: Drug Safety
  • Figure 8.14: Development Stage of Peak Activity, by Team Region: Drug Safety
  • Figure 8.15: Activity Start and Peak for Drug Safety, by Company: Global and US Teams
  • Figure 8.16: Activity Start and Peak for Drug Safety, by Company: Country-Level Teams
  • Compliance Functions: a Valuable Resource for In-House Teams
  • Figure 8.17: Perception of Where Compliance Belongs
  • Figure 8.18: Percentage of Medical Affairs Teams with Responsibility Over Compliance
  • Figure 8.19: US Compliance Team: Small Company 31
  • Figure 8.20: Compliance Budget Outsourcing: US Teams
  • Figure 8.21: Number of FTEs Dedicated to Compliance in 2015: US Teams
  • Figure 8.22: Percentage of Medical Affairs Budget Allocated to Compliance, by Company: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 8.23: Compliance 2015 Budget, by Company: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 8.24: Number of FTEs Dedicated to Compliance in 2015, by Company: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 8.25: Development Stage of Activity Start, by Team Region: Compliance
  • Figure 8.26: Development Stage of Peak Activity, by Team Region: Compliance
  • Figure 8.27: Activity Start and Peak for Compliance, by Team Region and Company
  • Figure 8.28: Perception of Where Regulatory Affairs Belongs
  • Contributions from Regulatory Teams Guide Medical Affairs Strategy
  • Figure 8.29: Percentage of Medical Affairs Teams with Responsibility Over Regulatory Affairs
  • Figure 8.30: Global Regulatory Affairs Team: Top 10 Company 1
  • Figure 8.31: Regulatory Affairs Budgets: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 8.32: Regulatory Affairs Budget Change from 2015 to 2016: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 8.33: Regulatory Affairs Budget Outsourcing: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 8.34: Number of FTEs Dedicated to Regulatory Affairs in 2015, by Company: Country-Level Teams
  • Figure 8.35: Development Stage of Activity Start, by Team Region: Regulatory Affairs
  • Figure 8.36: Development Stage of Peak Activity, by Team Region: Regulatory Affairs
  • Figure 8.37: Activity Start and Peak for Regulatory Affairs, by Team Region and Company
  • Medical Affairs Team Profiles
  • Figure 9.1: Company 1 Medical Affairs Structure
  • Figure 9.2: Company 1 Medical Affairs Staffing
  • Figure 9.3: Company 1 Medical Affairs Budget
  • Figure 9.4: Company 7 Medical Affairs Structure
  • Figure 9.5: Company 7 Medical Affairs Staffing
  • Figure 9.6: Company 7 Medical Affairs Budget
  • Figure 9.7: Company 14 Medical Affairs Structure
  • Figure 9.8: Company 14 Medical Affairs Staffing
  • Figure 9.9: Company 14 Medical Affairs Budget
  • Figure 9.10: Company 15 Medical Affairs Structure
  • Figure 9.11: Company 15 Medical Affairs Staffing
  • Figure 9.12: Company 15 Medical Affairs Budget
  • Figure 9.13: Company 22 Medical Affairs Structure
  • Figure 9.14: Company 22 Medical Affairs Staffing
  • Figure 9.15: Company 22 Medical Affairs Budget
  • Figure 9.16: Company 25 Medical Affairs Structure
  • Figure 9.17: Company 25 Medical Affairs Staffing
  • Figure 9.18: Company 25 Medical Affairs Budget
  • Figure 9.19: Company 34 Medical Affairs Structure
  • Figure 9.20: Company 34 Staffing
  • Figure 9.21: Company 34 Medical Affairs Budget
  • Figure 9.22: Company 39 Medical Affairs Structure
  • Figure 9.23: Company 39 Medical Affairs Staffing
  • Figure 9.24: Company 39 Medical Affairs Budget
  • Figure 9.25: Company 47 Medical Affairs Structure
  • Figure 9.26: Company 47 Medical Affairs Staffing
  • Figure 9.27: Company 47 Medical Affairs Budget
  • Figure 9.28: Company 47 Medical Affairs Budget, cont.
  • Figure 9.29: Company 50 Medical Affairs Structure
  • Figure 9.30: Company 50 Medical Affairs Staffing
  • Figure 9.31: Company 50 Medical Affairs Budget
  • Figure 9.32: Company 55 Medical Affairs Structure
  • Figure 9.33: Company 55 Medical Affairs Staffing
  • Figure 9.34: Company 55 Medical Affairs Budget
  • Figure 9.35: Company 59 Medical Affairs Structure
  • Figure 9.36: Company 59 Medical Affairs Staffing
  • Figure 9.37: Company 59 Medical Affairs Budget
Back to Top