Medical Affairs Value Measurement via Leading Indicators

STUDY OVERVIEW
BENCHMARK CLASS
SPECIAL OFFER

Non-members: Click here to review a complimentary excerpt from “The Medical Affairs Impact Equation: Measuring Tactical Value Through Leading Indicators”

STUDY OVERVIEW

Medical Affairs teams are increasingly expected to demonstrate tactical value through precise, measurable activities that align with strategic goals. As organizations evolve their engagement models, the ability to quantify Medical’s contribution via leading indicators—such as MSL insights, evidence generation, and scientific exchange—has become essential.

This study investigates how top-performing Medical Affairs groups define and track leading indicators to showcase value. It explores which activity metrics are most effective, how they are linked to strategic outcomes, and how organizations refine these metrics over time. The research also highlights real-world examples of successful linkage, common measurement challenges, and the data sources used to trace impact across product lifecycles.

KEY TOPICS

Leading Indicators of Medical Impact
Linkability of Leading Indicators to Strategic Outcomes
Real-World Examples of Activity-Driven Impact
Strategic Frameworks for Measuring Tactical Value

KEY METRICS

Top-rated activity metrics across Medical Affairs functions
Leading field vs. non-field activity measures
Benchmark linkage rates between activities and external outcomes
Medical activities most strongly tied to strategic impact
Mapping successful outcomes to multiple contributing activities

SAMPLE KEY FINDINGS

Many leading indicators used: All 15 surveyed activity metrics were deemed either “somewhat” or “highly important” for showing medical value by a majority of benchmark respondents.
- The top-rated field indicators: 1) Insights from MSL interactions, 2) scientific concepts discussed, 3) total interactions, 4) % territory engaged, and 5) F2F %

Most Medical organizations connect some, but not all, leading and lagging indicators: 62% of surveyed companies link some activities with specific corresponding external outcomes. Only 5% connect all activities with outcomes, while 33% of companies do not connect any leading and lagging indicators whatsoever.

METHODOLOGY

Best Practices, LLC conducted benchmarking with 40 Medical Affairs leaders from 30 leading biopharma companies. Interviews were also conducted with select participants to gather further insights on how Medical teams are measuring tactical value through leading indicators.

Industries Profiled:
Pharmaceutical; Medical Device; Biotech; Biopharmaceutical; Manufacturing; Consumer Products; Diagnostic; Health Care; Clinical Research; Laboratories

Companies Profiled:
AbbVie; Alcon; Alnylam Pharmaceuticals; Amgen; Astellas Pharma; Azurity Pharmaceuticals; Bayer; Boehringer Ingelheim; CSL Vifor; EMD Serono; Eton Pharmaceuticals; Eurofarma; Gilead Sciences; Grifols; Jazz Pharmaceuticals; Johnson & Johnson; Merck & Co.; Novartis; Organon; Orphalan; Otsuka; Pacira BioSciences; QIAGEN; Sanofi; Santen Pharmaceutical; Scholar Rock; Stallergenes Greer; Supernus; Syndax Pharmaceuticals; Takeda

If you purchase Best Practice Database document(s), you will have 30 days from the date of purchase to apply some or all of the cost of the document(s) toward the cost of a Full Access Individual, Pharma, Group or University Membership. Write us at DatabaseTeam@bestpracticesllc.com or call David Guinn at 919-767-9179 if you have any questions.

The Medical Affairs Impact Equation: Measuring Tactical Value Through Leading Indicators

ID: 5893

Features:

Pages/Slides: 29

Published: 2025

Delivery Format: Online PDF Document

RELATED RESEARCH

1<!DOCTYPE html>
2
3Anonymous
4/bestp
5/bestp/domrep.nsf
6C0690AB40E81151F00258D0700300F49
8
9
10
11
12
13
140
15
16
17/bestp/domrep.nsf/products/db-medical-affairs-impact-equation-measuring-tactical-value-leading-indicators
18
19
20216.73.216.60
21
22
23www.emed24.net
24/bestp/domrep.nsf
25DB