Please activate JavaScript in your browser settings to enable all features of this website.

Möchten Sie zur deutschen Seite wechseln?JaNeina
Close

Welcome to GfK

GfK is the trusted source of relevant market and consumer information that enables its clients to make smarter decisions. More than 13,000 market research experts combine their passion with GfK’s long-standing data science experience. This allows GfK to deliver vital global insights matched with local market intelligence from more than 100 countries. By using innovative technologies and data sciences, GfK turns big data into smart data, enabling its clients to improve their competitive edge and enrich consumers' experiences and choices.

Visit your country's site

Latest insights

Here you can find the latest global news, studies and publications from GfK.

View all global insights from GfK

    • 03/29/17
    • Health
    • Global
    • English

    The Goldilocks conundrum: When is health technology pricing just right?

    There is a Russian proverb that tells of two fools in every market, one whose price is too low and one whose price is too high. Regrettably, there is no mention of a third player whose price is just right, perhaps for good reason. But if we think about the challenges of establishing an optimal pricing strategy for an innovative medicine or health technology, it is hard to see how we could get to the “right price”. To do so, we need to aim for one price that meets the expectations of all relevant stakeholders – national governments, insurance companies, providers, physicians, patients, industry, investors et al.

    Pricing that’s all things to all people – is it attainable?

    In many markets, national, regional and/or local payer organizations dominate the market access process, while the influence of prescribers on both access and uptake has been significantly eroded. Industry has learned to engage with payers to understand not simply what they are willing to pay for a new technology but how they will come to that decision – against what comparator, and in which patient population, as well as how any incremental benefits are likely to be valued. A pricing and market access strategy based solely on the prescriber and payer perspectives risks significantly undervaluing the pharmaceutical or health technologies in question. We believe that an optimal pricing and market access strategy has to build on a solid understanding of all relevant stakeholder groups. Clearly, the starting point with any pricing research is to gain an understanding of the views of these stakeholders on:
    • current standard of care and level of unmet need
    • likely clinical, HTA and pricing comparators
    • potential or actual incremental clinical (and non-clinical) value that the new medicine or technology can deliver
    • patient and funding flow
    • key budget holders and decision makers
    • willingness to pay and/or co-pay

    Never have so many strategies been used to explore so many drivers for just one definitive pricing solution

    As we progress to more formal pricing research, especially with third–party payers, it is important to use a range of strategies to explore value drivers, price and potential patient access scenarios. We favor a multilayered approach to qualitative payer research that explores: Having established a number of likely patient access scenarios, we then need to model the potential impact of access management strategies, patient willingness to pay/co-pay and the impact of physician behavior and, where relevant, potential pharmacist input, including substitution. Although physicians’ ability to directly influence initial pricing or access decisions may be limited, their role in determining uptake of “listed” products remains and is a key factor in demand assessment and forecasting. With experience gained in both the prescription and consumer health markets to develop evidence-based pricing, demand assessment and forecasting tools, we have been able to guide our clients to make informed decisions on pricing and market access strategies against so many odds. Tim Fitzgerald is the Managing Director of Market Access at GfK. Please email tim.fitzgerald@gfk.com or leave a comment below to share your thoughts.
    • 03/24/17
    • Health
    • Global
    • English

    Understanding pricing of health technologies in out-of-pocket markets

    In many emerging markets, healthcare funding remains very much an out-of-pocket expense. For some, it is the second most important household expenditure after food. It is critical, therefore, when establishing pricing strategies in such markets that we consider both willingness and ability to pay. We also must consider how these factors may be shaped by a range of external influences, including:
    • patient-relevant product attributes/outcomes
    • patient-access pathway
    • physician endorsement
    • pharmacist recommendation/substitution
    • multichannel information sources
    • friends, family or caregiver attitudes
    • financial support and drug donation programs
    • brand awareness/loyalty

    Patients’ priorities vs. physicians’ views

    Patient-relevant product attributes and outcomes that would not normally be seen as valuable to government or insurance-based payers or indeed the treating physician may resonate far more with the patient who is also the “payer”. For example, they may be far more willing to pay for convenience. Outcomes demonstrating earlier return to school or work may carry far greater value than would normally be the case in formal health technology assessment, which is too often limited to a view which takes only direct health system costs into account. Where the physician continues to act as a key gatekeeper, it is critical to understand that their views of what is important to the patient may not be aligned with the patients themselves. Take, for example, breast cancer. While over 70% of physicians believe that patients with breast cancer consider keeping their breast as a top priority, the figure from direct patient research is less than 10%.

    Comparison of patient and physician drivers in asthma (GfK Asthma Research, China)

    Consequently, physicians may also make treatment decisions/recommendations based on false assumptions regarding the patient’s willingness to pay.

    Physicians: Are they reliable surrogates of patients’ willingness to pay (WTP) or not?

    Our research across a range of markets and therapy areas has highlighted how physicians often provide a very unreliable surrogate of patient WTP. It has also revealed significant variation between the impact of different WTP drivers on patients in different markets, socioeconomic groups and disease areas.

    Examining evidence-based pricing

    We apply our best-in-class approaches to support evidence-based pricing in these self-pay markets, building on many decades of experience in both the prescription and consumer medicines space. By combining our global expertise and local market knowledge, we are able to help clients optimize patient access and uptake in a way which is aligned to our client’s global and regional commercial strategy. These same approaches are equally valuable in more traditional markets where there has been a shift in financial burden towards the patients through co-payment mechanisms. The US is an obvious example of where co-payments are the norm, and understanding the trade-offs between pricing, tier placement and co-payment are crucial elements of pricing and contracting strategy development. Tim Fitzgerald is the Managing Director at GfK Market Access. Please email tim.fitzgerald@gfk.com or leave a comment below to share your thoughts. hbspt.cta.load(2405078, '89f87f98-7414-476d-b580-663cf3d6522a', {});
    • 03/24/17
    • Crossmedia Link
    • Global
    • English

    How to understand consumers' media usage and content consumption across devices

    Using GfK's Crossmedia Visualizer, you will gain insights on digital media audiences and their behaviors to identify and reach your target audiences.
    • 03/23/17
    • Media and Entertainment
    • Retail
    • Global
    • English

    Majority of international online population regularly reads books

    Over half of the international online population (59%) reads from a book “at least once a week”, according to our recently released report featuring survey results from 17 countries.  Just under a third (30%) of those surveyed read daily, with China leading the way for the percentage of its population who are regular readers. Russia (59%) and Spain (57%) rank behind China (70%) for the percentage of their online population that reads “at least once a week”.  When we combine results for everyday readers, and those who read “every day or most days”, China leads again at 36% with Spain and the UK following closely behind at 32% each.

    Regular readers more likely to come from high income households

    Those living in high income households read books more often than those in low income households, with over a third (35%) saying that they read regularly “every (day) or most days”.  In low income households, a quarter of people (24%) are daily readers, and one out of ten claim that they ‘never’ read books, which is triple the percentage reported for high income households. “The value of these findings for the book industry lies in combining this self-reported data with analysis of actual sales across different markets and insights from our retail and consumer panels”, says Mathias Giloth, Managing Director of GfK Entertainment. “With this multi-layered approach, we help our clients to fine-tune their audience segmentation and identify customer potential, both globally and at country-specific level.”

    Regular readers by gender

    Women are more likely to be avid book readers than men, with 32% reading daily, compared to 27% of men from the international online population.  The gender gap between regular book readers is widest in the Netherlands and Spain, followed by Canada and Germany.

    Leading nations for non-readers

    The Netherlands, along with South Korea, both registered as countries with the highest percentage of their online population who report never reading books, at 16% each.  Belgium (14%) and Canada, France and Japan (11%) have the next highest proportion of non-readers.

    About the study

    We conducted the online survey with over 22,000 consumers aged 15 or older across 17 countries. Fieldwork was completed in summer 2016. Data are weighted to reflect the demographic composition of the online 3 population aged 15+ in each market. Countries covered are Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Russia, South Korea, Spain, UK and USA. hbspt.cta.load(2405078, '85efaed5-bbe3-4229-88b3-080a02a00197', {});
Your GfK contact
General