Reflections and highlights
We can learn a lot more about a therapy’s growth potential in the initial period after launch and leverage that knowledge to refine targeting and activities. We need to look more critically at the difference between “early adopters" and “unanticipated adopters”. Our objective should be to understand a new therapy’s true value proposition through the lens of healthcare providers whose treatment behaviors change meaningfully for specific patient populations versus those who have “nowhere else to go” (due to access) and/or have already "tried everything” (already tried existing treatment options with no success).
We can make more aggressive choices in channel and brand strategy. Given the complexity of new therapy adoption and the dynamics of multiple customers, decision-makers and influencers, commercial approach must take channel and brand strategy into consideration. Conflating these two fundamental commercial imperatives can dilute opportunities for segmented messaging and marketing investment, where different needs require different approaches.
We can better design clinical trials to understand adoption behaviors and triggers. Every therapy faces adoption barriers and enablers, depending on the disease area, patient population, healthcare provider setting, etc. Some of these barriers are cultural, some infrastructural, others are psychological, environmental, etc. Our aim should be to anticipate these adoption factors and plan for them.
We must hold all customers - payers, healthcare providers and patients - accountable for health outcomes. Low patient compliance doesn’t just undermine efficacy, it also undermines therapy adoption. Payers and healthcare providers need help distinguishing what dynamic is at play: low Rx fulfillment, treatment education, side effects, cost? etc. Data and insights are critical to our shared understanding of better outcomes.