Measuring Impact

How do we measure the impact of Medical Affairs? Well, as they say, “There’s a lot to unpack there.”

I’ll readily admit that I don't have all of the answers when it comes to this topic (and most, for that matter). Frankly, I’m not sure anyone does. But that’s what makes it worth discussing.

For several reasons, it’s probably wise for me to remind you that these are my thoughts. Additionally, from time to time, I might quote or reference someone. Don’t assume that’s a full endorsement of that individual, as most of the time, it’s simply a nod to something well said.

Now, where to start?

First, measuring impact is easier for some Medical Affairs functions than others.

If I’m charged with leading the clinical development of a critical asset, there are objective measures and timelines that are complex yet clear.

Having said that, I try hard to make the content in this newsletter applicable to all Medical Affairs roles, but today, I will focus primarily on Field Medical teams.

The reason is probably obvious. Field Medical is typically the largest investment in terms of resources and headcount for most Medical Affairs organizations. As a result, there’s arguably more scrutiny on Field Medical teams than other functions.

Additionally, the impact of Field Medical is simultaneously hard to articulate and not debatable. Everyone would like to better understand the impact, but I’m unaware of any successful pharmaceutical company suggesting not investing (heavily?) in the function.