1<!DOCTYPE html>

Products & Services Competitive and Business Intelligence Contracting Vendor/ Outsourcing

Health Info System Excellence: How Top Biopharmas Build Integrated Data Systems to Fulfill Patient-Centric Clinical & Commercial Objectives

ID: POP-324


27 Info Graphics

10 Data Graphics

120+ Metrics

5 Narratives

Pages: 43

Published: 2020

Delivery Format: Shipped


License Options:

Buy Now



A well-integrated health information system allows pharma companies to store and access de-identified aggregated insights and trends that are collected at numerous touchpoints throughout the patient journey and value chain of the drug. While many companies often rely on multiple vendors to help build health information systems, it is vital to ensure that there is alignment with the company's system to provide meaningful patient-centric services.

Best Practices, LLC conducted this research to examine how biopharma companies can work with vendors to develop fully integrated and accessible databases for aggregated health insights, often referred to as "health information systems."

This report evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of six of the industry's leading health information vendors, and illustrates how peer pharma companies utilize a mix of vendors, data types, and internal protocols to create and maintain highly effective health information systems.

This report also provides new insights into the typical roles of each function relative to data collection, storage, analysis and usage.

Industries Profiled:
Medical Device; Biotech; Pharmaceutical; Consulting; Science; Health Care; Communications; Consumer Products; Biopharmaceutical

Companies Profiled:
Alcon; Ascensia; Biotest AG; Boehringer Ingelheim; Central IQ; Inc.; Edward Lifesciences; GlaxoSmithKline ; Ipsen; IQVIA; Klosterfrau Healthcare Group; MEDiSTRAVA; Merck; NexGen Healthcare Communications; Novartis; Pfizer; Regeneron; Rhythm Pharmaceuticals; Sunovion

Study Snapshot

Best Practices, LLC engaged 19 leaders from 18 pharma and biotech companies in this research through a benchmarking survey. Four leaders were further engaged in deep-dive interviews to capture additional insights.

Key topics covered in this report include:

  • Objectives for using health information systems
  • Types of clinical and non-clinical research data collected
  • Creation of health information system and vendors used
  • Vendor ratings, selection criteria and SWOT analyses
  • Roles of health information vendors and style of collaboration
  • Patient centricity leadership and roles
  • Major improvements planned to health information systems

*IQVIA response not included in quantitative analysis, only used for qualitative answers and open-ends to elucidate systems and health information landscape.

Key Findings

Select key insights uncovered from this report are noted below. Detailed findings are available in the full report.

  • Use of Health Information Systems: Health information systems are common among the benchmark class, with only small pharmaceutical companies not using them or not planning to use them.
  • Departmental Use of Health Information Systems: Market Research and Patient Advocacy groups often provide data for health information systems, whereas data is most often owned by Information Technology and Research & Development groups.

Table of Contents

Sr. No.
Slide No.
Study Overviewp. 3
The Health Information System Landscapep. 3
Universe of Learningp. 3
Use of Health Information Systemsp. 4
Health Information Vendorsp. 13
Vendor Ratingsp. 15
Company Profiles / SWOT Analysesp. 19
Internal Patient-Centric Support for Health Information Systems and Vendorsp. 38
About Best Practices, LLCp. 43

    List of Charts & Exhibits

    I. Use of Health Information Systems

    • Sources of data for health information systems
    • Use of health information systems by large and small-to-mid biopharma companies
    • Biggest success stories from using aggregated anonymous information housed in a health information system
    • Limitations to realizing the benefits of health information systems
    • Main objectives for developing or using health information systems and success in achieving the said objectives
    • Primary departmental roles when utilizing health information systems
    • Departmental use of health information systems
    • Types of clinical and non-clinical research data collected by benchmark organizations

    II. Health Information Vendors

    • In-house vs. outsourced construction of health information system; and Vendors used when creating a health information system

    II A. Vendor Ratings

    • Performance rating of the vendor - Symphony Health - on a scale of 1 to 10
    • Performance rating of the vendor - IQVIA - on a scale of 1 to 10; reason for outsourcing the creation of a health information system to IQVIA
    • Performance rating of the vendors - Accenture and Corrona - on a scale of 1 to 10
    • Performance rating of the vendors - Digital Reasoning Systems and Optum Health - on a scale of 1 to 10

    II B. Company Profiles / SWOT Analyses

    • IQVIA’s main advantage
    • SWOT analysis of IQVIA
    • Accenture’s main offering
    • Accenture’s back end capabilities
    • SWOT analysis of Accenture
    • Symphony Health’s main advantage
    • SWOT analysis of Symphony Health
    • Corrona’s main offerings
    • SWOT analysis of Corrona
    • Optum Health’s unique offering
    • SWOT analysis of Optum Health
    • Digital Reasoning Systems’ main advantage
    • SWOT analysis of Digital Reasoning Systems
    • Parexel’s unique offering
    • Xcenda’s unique offering
    • IBM Watson’s main advantage
    • Most critical characteristics / features desired when choosing an outsourcing partner for building an accessible health information system
    • Roles of health information vendors during each stage of health information system development
    • Methods of collaboration used when working with the selected vendors

    III. Internal Patient-Centric Support for Health Information Systems and Vendors

    • Presence of a Chief Patient Officer role; Job level and title of the representative(s) who direct(s) patient centricity efforts
    • Core responsibilities fulfilled by patient centricity leaders
    • Major improvements planned to add to health information systems in the next 3 years
    • Ideal improvements to health information systems