The Future of the Pharma Commercial Model
The next decade of commercial advantage in pharma will be won in the distance between an approved medicine and a patient who stays on it. Not in the promotion of the medicine. That distance is where the value your science already earned goes missing, and in most companies nobody owns it.
This page is the whole argument in one place. Four conditions that make your market structurally different from every market consumer playbooks were written for. Three paths where earned value is lost. One number that tells you how much. One standard you are being held to whether you accept it or not.
Everything else on this site is a branch of what follows.
What is actually changing?
The scarce resource moved. It used to be access to the physician. Now it is completion of the decision she has already made.
Your commercial system was designed for the first problem. Share of voice, reach and frequency, call plans, message recall. Every one of those instruments measures whether you were present at the moment of choice. None of them measures whether the choice survived contact with your company.
Look at what happens after the choice. A 2026 JAMA study summarized by Johns Hopkins found insurer rejections reached 40.7% of initial brand name attempts in 2024, up from 24.3% in 2018. Of those rejected scripts, 48.4% were never followed by a fill of that drug or anything in its class within 90 days. Your medicine was chosen. The patient went without.
That is not a marketing failure. It is a system that stops measuring at the point where the money is actually lost.
Access to the room is closing at the same time. Veeva Pulse data reported by BioSpace put HCP accessibility at 45%, down from 60% eighteen months earlier. So the lever you have spent forty years refining is getting weaker, and the lever nobody is pulling is getting heavier. That is the shift, stated plainly.
Why does your current model miss it?
Because four conditions in your market break the assumptions every consumer experience playbook rests on. Most companies import the playbook anyway, and then wonder why the program dies.
One. Your customer is three people. A physician chooses, a payer covers, a patient uses. Loyalty, repeat purchase and advocacy all assume those are the same person with the same interest. Ask one of the three and you have heard a third of the decision, usually from the party least exposed to what went wrong.
Two. Your feedback loop is closed by law and invisible by structure. In most markets you may not discuss the product with the patient. The people who abandon you do it quietly and without a complaint, which means you are being graded by a jury you are not allowed to interview.
Three. Your value event happens months after the transaction you count. Revenue is recognized at dispensing. Benefit is realized at sustained therapy. The gap between those two is handled by parties you do not employ, in a process you did not design, and your scorecard closes before it starts.
Four. Regulation governs claims, not burden. This is the hinge, and it is the one you can use tomorrow. Almost none of the friction your customers meet is legally required. It is unowned.
Your industry has spent two decades treating operational burden as a compliance constraint. That turns the excuse into unclaimed ground for whoever reads the rules properly.
I have set out the consequences at length in why consumer CX does not translate to pharma. The short version is that a borrowed model will give you a satisfaction score and no money.
Where exactly does the value go?
Three paths, in sequence. Name them and you can fund them. Leave them unnamed and the loss stays invisible.
The Path to Prescribe runs from an undiagnosed patient to a clinical decision. Identification, diagnosis, referral, and a clinician who chooses. This is the only path your current commercial model fully funds.
The Path to Fulfill runs from that decision to the medicine in a hand. Coverage, prior authorization, cost, dispensing. In the American Medical Association's latest survey, 93% of physicians said prior authorization delays care and 82% said it at least sometimes leads patients to abandon treatment. Cost finishes what paperwork starts. IQVIA Institute data reported by Managed Healthcare Executive found that of prescriptions with a final cost above $250, 61% are not picked up.
The Path to Adhere runs from a first fill to the duration your trial actually demonstrated. Persistence, refill, support, the second and third unglamorous months where your efficacy claim either becomes true for this person or does not.
Ask your team which of the three they have a named owner for, a budget line against, and a measure on the commercial scorecard. In most companies the honest answer is one out of three.
What is the number that matters?
The share of the value you already earned that you actually realize. We call it your Realization Rate, and it is the only number in this argument that a finance director will recognize as a number.
Start with the value your science and your promotion have already created. A clinical decision made in your favor is earned value. Then measure what arrives.
Script to start conversion. Time to therapy. Persistence at six and twelve months. Barrier resolution speed. The difference between earned and realized is value leakage, and it is the largest unmanaged line item in your commercial budget.
Two things follow from measuring it this way, and both matter to you.
The first is that the loss becomes forecastable rather than anecdotal. Once you can size the leak by brand and by path, you can hold it as Customer Value at Risk and put it in a plan, which is how any other function gets funded.
The second is that you stop arguing about sentiment. Bain's analysis of pharma commercial productivity found that roughly 40% of a physician's drug recommendations relate to overall experience rather than the product itself. That is a real finding and it is still not a scorecard. Progression measures are. The full set is in how to measure customer experience in pharma.
What standard are you being held to?
The one your patient met this morning, somewhere else, before she met you.
She tracked a parcel to the minute. She changed a flight on her phone in ninety seconds. Then she called your hub and was asked for her date of birth four times. She is not comparing you to Merck. She is comparing you to the last competent transaction she had, and you do not get a pass for being a pharma company.
That is the bar I call Consumer-Grade. Not a tone of voice, not a design system. A standard of operational performance applied to the three paths above, in a market where the three person structure makes it harder and the stakes make it matter more. What meeting it changes, slowly, is Predisposition, the lean your customer already holds before you ask.
Your own customers are already scoring you against it. Only 16% of respondents in DHC Group research reported by eMarketer view the pharma industry as patient centric. Effort is the mechanism underneath that number. Gartner found 62% of customer service channel transitions are high effort in industries that can watch the transition happen. You usually cannot watch yours.
Who is going to own this?
Nobody, in your current structure, which is precisely why the work does not happen.
Count the functions with a claim on the three paths. Marketing owns the message. Sales owns the relationship. Market access owns the formulary. Patient services owns the hub.
Medical owns the science. Every one of them touches a seam and none of them owns the whole distance, so the seams belong to the organization chart rather than to a person.
My argument is that realized value needs a fourth pillar beside brand, field and access. Not a CX department. A commercial function accountable for the conversion of earned decisions into realized therapy, with a scorecard, a budget and a seat where the money is allocated.
Watch the evidence for the gap. Deloitte's 2025 research found that only 28% of HCPs believe pharma's engagement strategies meet their needs, against 82% of life sciences executives who say they are satisfied with those same strategies. A 54 point spread is not a measurement error. It is what an unowned system looks like from the outside, and I have written on where it should sit in who should own customer experience in a pharma company.
What happens to the companies that wait?
They get the structure rewritten around them by companies that moved first, and then they copy the artifact instead of the decision.
Look at what the direct channels actually did. Lilly did not build a better experience. It set a cash price, routed around access and shortened the Path to Fulfill, which I have taken apart in what Lilly actually changed. Novo followed into the same path, and the one I examine in the consumer business question is why both still leave the other two paths open.
The lesson is available to you without a cash paying category. Those companies found the specific structural gate between their science and their patients, then changed the structure rather than improving the experience around it. Your gate is different. The method is the same.
If you want the sequence rather than the thesis, start where the diagnosis is, in why pharma CX programs fail. Take the money case next, in what the ROI of customer experience actually is. Then work out what you should be listening to, in voice of the customer in pharma. The discipline that holds the whole thing together is Customer Excellence. If somebody is selling you simulated customers while you do it, read how to validate a synthetic audience and the calibration trap first.
Exceptional science deserves an exceptional commercial system. Yours already has the first half.
Key takeaways
- Commercial advantage is moving from winning the prescribing decision to completing it, because the decision increasingly fails after it is made.
- Four structural conditions break the consumer playbook in pharma, and the fourth is the opening: regulation governs claims, not burden.
- Value is lost along three sequential paths, and most companies fund only the first one.
- Realization Rate converts the argument into a number a finance director accepts, and the gap it exposes is value leakage.
- Consumer-Grade is the standard your patients already apply, and no function in your current structure owns the whole distance it covers.
Questions to ask your leadership team
- For your lead brand, what share of clinical decisions made in your favor turns into sustained therapy, and who reports that number?
- Which of the three paths has a named owner, a budget line and a measure on the commercial scorecard?
- Of the friction your customers meet, how much is a regulatory claims rule and how much have you simply never challenged?
- What would you stop funding if you could size value leakage by brand tomorrow?
- Who in your company would lose if the Path to Adhere improved, and how are you going to handle that?
About the author
Wayne Simmons is the founder of The Customer Excellence AGENCY and the author of The Customer Excellence Enterprise (Wiley, 2024). He is founding faculty of the MS in Customer Experience Management at Michigan State University's Broad College of Business. He led global customer excellence in Pfizer's first Chief Marketing Organization and in Bayer's Customer Powerhouse. Related reading: What Consumer-Grade means in pharma, What is value leakage in pharma? and What is Customer Excellence?







