OBJECTIVES : Market Access (MA) teams are still designing their optimal positioning within the life science industry. They encompass a more and more complex scope. When it comes to the MA team structure, a tailored structure is designed per company, including organizational location, departmental interactions, functionality, etc. As uncertainty continues to drive MA teams in different directions, we surveyed a pool of companies to identify the main drivers leading a MA’s team organization and positioning within an organization.

METHODS : A qualitative research was based on 13 semi-structured discussions (60 min) with MA leaders having EU or global responsibility, across 13 groups covering large pharmaceutical firms, medical device, and biotech.

RESULTS : The research found that 60% of panel companies have restructured their MA departments within the last 3 years, mostly driven by the need for increased resources and competencies. Increasingly, MA departments report to the most senior executives (i.e. CEOs, marketing and sales VPs, etc.) and the team organization is most often structured by product prioritization or geography, sometimes a combination. In addition, if local MA teams are taking initiatives to tailor their strategies and communication with local payers, the alignment with global teams is still a challenge and may hinder the MA performance of the group overall. Finally, HEOR teams usually operate as a separate entity from MA, and interactions with departments such as finance, legal and R&D are still scarce and insufficient compared to interactions with sales & marketing teams.

CONCLUSIONS : As MA teams undergo significant development locally, challenges arise when it comes to alignment between global and local strategies & implementations, as well as objectives and KPIs. Novel innovative collaborations can be developed to reduce the gap between local and global departments, promoting the development of fruitful relationships, to increase MA efficiency overall and optimize patient access.