Does NPS Work With Physicians?

No, and the reason is more interesting than the usual complaint about survey fatigue.

The standard objection is that your physicians are busy and your response rates are poor. True, and beside the point. The real problem is that the strongest evidence for using an advocacy score in pharma almost certainly has the arrow pointing the wrong way. Here is the case for it, then why I stopped believing it.

What does the evidence for NPS in pharma actually say?

It is better than critics admit, so let me put it at its strongest.

Bain's 2018 pharma work found that roughly 40% of a doctor's drug recommendations relate to overall experience rather than the product. The same work put physicians who score a company highly at somewhere between 2.3 and 2.7 times more likely to prescribe its brands. McKinsey's launch research found fully satisfied prescribers more than twice as likely to prescribe. Those are large effects. If you run a brand, they are the numbers your agency shows you.

The original logic is sound too. Fred Reichheld built the case in the Harvard Business Review in 2003 on a real observation, which is that willingness to recommend tracked growth across the industries he studied. It was honest work. Pharma simply borrowed it without checking whether the conditions held.

So why am I not convinced?

Because a doctor who already prescribes your brand has every reason to rate you highly.

Sit with that. She has met your rep more often. Your medical team answered her question about a difficult patient. Her office staff knows how to work your hub. She has seen your drug work.

Each of those is a consequence of prescribing, not a cause of it.

So when you find that high scoring physicians prescribe more, you may have discovered that prescribing produces high scores. The correlation is real. The direction is assumed. Nobody in the industry has published the study that separates the two, and until somebody does, a brand plan built on that arrow is a brand plan built on a guess.

Bain's own numbers hint at the problem. Their published range has relative score differences explaining anywhere from 10% to 70% of the variation in subsequent revenue growth. That is not a measurement. That is a span.

In a separate paper the firm put it more carefully still, calling goodwill "a necessary but insufficient condition for generating revenue growth." Necessary but insufficient is a fair description of what you are buying. It is also not a thing you can manage to.

Why does a three person market break the score specifically?

Your physician is not the only person in the transaction, and the score only asks her.

She chooses. A payer decides whether to cover. A patient uses the therapy and pays part of the cost. The advocacy question assumes those three are one person, because in the markets Reichheld studied they were. Ask a bank customer whether she would recommend her bank and you have asked the chooser, the payer and the user in a single question.

Ask a physician the same thing and you have surveyed one third of the decision. The third least exposed to what goes wrong. She writes the script and the failure happens downstream, in an adjudication she never sees and a pharmacy counter she never visits. I have written separately about why consumer CX does not translate to pharma, and this is the clearest single example of it.

Can you even close the loop on a detractor?

Usually not, which removes the mechanism that made the instrument work everywhere else.

The discipline was never really about the number. It was about what happened after a low score: you called the customer, you found the problem, you fixed it, you told them you fixed it. That loop is the engine.

Your version is constrained. You may not be able to discuss the product with a patient. You often cannot see which handoff failed. Your rep may learn about a detractor score weeks later, in a format she cannot act on, about an issue that belongs to a function she does not control.

So you collect the signal and cannot complete the circuit. A diagnostic with no treatment attached is a report, not a program.

What is the score costing you?

Access, which is now your scarcest asset.

Veeva Pulse data reported by BioSpace found 45% of HCPs accessible to biopharma, down from 60% eighteen months earlier. Every survey you send consumes a little of what remains. Ask yourself what you did with the last wave of responses. If the answer is a slide, you spent access on a slide.

There is a credibility cost too. As I put it to CXM last year, doctors do not go around asking about loyalty. Asking a physician to rate her affection for a pharmaceutical company tells her something about how you see the relationship, and it is not flattering.

What should you ask her instead?

What it cost her to work with you.

How many calls to get one patient started. How many times her staff supplied the same information twice. How long she waited to learn a case had stalled. Whether anyone told her when it resolved. Effort is specific, attributable to a named team, and fixable inside a quarter, which is three things a score is not.

Pair that with progression data on the patients themselves and you have a measurement system rather than a mood ring. I set out the full replacement set in how to measure customer experience in pharma, and the short version is that every measure needs a numerator, a denominator and an owner.

The gap this leaves open is not small. 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. Those executives have scores. The scores did not warn them.

Is there any version worth keeping?

One, and it is narrower than your vendor will tell you.

Run the same question across your own regions, teams or reps, at the same moment, and the confound I described above is roughly constant. Everyone is measuring physicians who already prescribe. What is left is relative, and relative differences between your own territories can point you at a practice worth copying or a problem worth visiting.

That is an internal diagnostic. It is not a measure of your commercial health, it does not belong in a board pack, and it cannot carry a brand plan. Keep it at that size and it earns its keep.

What it cannot do is tell you whether your science reached the patient. That question needs different instruments, which is why we built Customer Excellence around progression rather than sentiment.

Key takeaways

  • The strongest pharma evidence for advocacy scores cannot rule out reverse causation, because prescribing produces the experiences that produce the score.
  • Bain's own published range for score to growth runs from 10% to 70%, and the firm calls goodwill necessary but insufficient.
  • Your chooser, payer and user are three people, so a physician survey reaches the party least exposed to the failure.
  • Without the ability to close the loop on a detractor, the score is a diagnostic with no treatment attached.
  • Keep it only as an internal comparison across your own teams, where the bias is constant and the differences still mean something.

Questions to ask your leadership team

  1. If your score rose four points next quarter, what would you expect in your brand numbers, by when, and who would be accountable for delivering it?
  2. How do you know your high scoring physicians are not simply your existing prescribers?
  3. When a physician gives you a low score, who calls her, how fast, and what can that person actually change?
  4. What did you do with the last wave of responses, and was it worth the access it cost?
  5. Does any measure in your CX pack tell you whether a patient started therapy?

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: Why pharma CX programs fail, How to measure customer experience in pharma and What is value leakage in pharma?

March 15, 2026
Why healthcare professionals now judge pharmaceutical engagement against the best experiences in their lives, and what that means for the future of commercial leadership. When commercial performance falters, the reflex inside many pharmaceutical organizations is to adjust the machinery of field execution. Leaders revisit call plans, recalibrate targeting models, and increase the volume of activity in the hope that more precision or more frequency will restore momentum. For decades this system has been treated as the central instrument of commercial performance, determining which physicians are prioritized, how frequently representatives engage, and how resources are deployed across territories. Yet the growing gap between commercial effort and commercial impact suggests a deeper issue. T he problem is rarely the design of the call plan itself. It is the context in which healthcare professionals now operate. Physicians are navigating increasingly complex clinical, administrative, and informational environments, and that evolving reality now shapes prescribing behavior far more than the cadence of promotional interactions. What many organizations are experiencing is a widening Customer Context Gap. Commercial systems were designed for a time when prescribing decisions could be influenced primarily through promotional interaction and product information. Today physicians operate inside a far more complex reality shaped by administrative burden, reimbursement constraints, digital information overload, and growing expectations for seamless support across the entire care journey. In this environment the physician’s decision is influenced not only by clinical evidence but also by how easily a therapy fits into the practical realities of care delivery. When commercial models remain anchored in promotional activity while the customer’s context has fundamentally changed, even the most disciplined call plan struggles to deliver the outcomes it was designed to produce. Closing this gap requires a different way of thinking about commercial performance. The question is no longer how to optimize promotional activity but how to align the organization around the real journeys through which physicians help patients receive therapy. Prescribing decisions unfold within complex sequences of clinical evaluation, reimbursement navigation, patient readiness, and ongoing support. When commercial strategy is designed around these journeys rather than isolated interactions, the role of the field force begins to evolve. Representatives are no longer positioned primarily as messengers of information but as partners in removing barriers that slow care. Organizations that recognize this shift begin redesigning their commercial systems accordingly, aligning field engagement, digital support, access programs, and patient services around the same goal: helping healthcare professionals help patients move from clinical intent to successful treatment. From Promotional Activity to Customer Journeys The pharmaceutical industry has historically organized commercial activity around the moment of promotion. Call plans, targeting models, and message sequencing were designed to influence prescribing behavior primarily through informational engagement with healthcare professionals. While this model brought structure and scale to commercial operations, it reflects an earlier era in which the path from clinical awareness to prescribing action was comparatively linear. Today the journey is far more complex. Physicians must navigate an intricate landscape of clinical evidence, treatment guidelines, payer requirements, prior authorization processes, patient affordability concerns, and adherence challenges. Prescribing a therapy is no longer a single decision point. It is the beginning of a chain of events that determines whether a patient ultimately receives and remains on treatment. This is why the commercial conversation must expand beyond the traditional moment of prescription to encompass three interconnected journeys. The first is the Path-to-Prescribe , where scientific evidence, clinical education, and confidence in the therapy shape the physician’s willingness to recommend treatment. The second is the Path-to-Fulfill, where access, affordability, patient readiness, and operational support determine whether that recommendation ultimately becomes therapy in the patient’s hands. The third is the Path-to-Adhere , where ongoing patient support, monitoring, and engagement determine whether patients remain on therapy long enough to realize the intended clinical benefit. Science drives the Path to Prescribe, where evidence, clinical education, and confidence in the therapy shape the physician’s willingness to recommend treatment. Experience shapes the Path to Fulfill, where access, affordability, and patient readiness determine whether that recommendation becomes therapy in the patient’s hands. Sustained outcomes depend on the Path to Adhere, where ongoing support, monitoring, and engagement ensure patients remain on therapy long enough to realize its intended clinical benefit. When commercial organizations focus almost exclusively on the first while leaving the latter journeys fragmented and burdened, a significant portion of therapeutic value is lost between intention and impact. In many therapeutic areas, the result appears in the persistent gap between prescriptions written, prescriptions filled, and therapies sustained—gaps that reflect not a failure of science but a failure of system design. Recognizing these three journeys shifts the unit of focus from promotional activity to the real-world pathways through which care is delivered. It reframes the role of the field force, the purpose of digital engagement, and the design of patient support programs around a single objective: reducing the friction that stands between clinical intent, treatment initiation, and sustained patient outcomes. Customer Context Is the New Commercial Variable For much of the pharmaceutical industry’s history, commercial performance was largely explained by a familiar set of variables. Product efficacy, clinical differentiation, promotional reach, and sales force execution determined the trajectory of most brands. When performance lagged, leaders adjusted those levers by refining segmentation, optimizing targeting, and recalibrating call plans. Today those traditional levers still matter, but they no longer explain commercial outcomes on their own. A far more powerful variable has entered the equation: customer context. HCPs now operate within an environment defined not only by clinical complexity and administrative burden but also by rising expectations shaped by their experiences outside healthcare. Physicians are also consumers. In their personal lives they interact daily with companies such as Apple, Amazon, Tesla, and Netflix that anticipate their needs, remove friction, and simplify complex processes through thoughtful design. These experiences quietly reset the benchmark for competence, responsiveness, and respect for their time. When those same physicians step into their clinical roles, they do not shed those expectations. They carry them with them. The contrast between the seamless orchestration of their consumer experiences and the fragmented systems surrounding many healthcare interactions becomes difficult to ignore. What once felt acceptable now feels unnecessarily burdensome. This dynamic represents the Consumer-Grade Imperative. Healthcare professionals increasingly evaluate pharmaceutical engagement not against other pharmaceutical companies but against the best experiences they encounter anywhere in their lives. In this environment even a clinically superior therapy can struggle if the surrounding system makes it difficult to initiate treatment, navigate reimbursement, or support patient adherence. Customer context therefore becomes the new commercial variable. It determines whether scientific differentiation translates into practical adoption. It shapes whether prescribing intent becomes therapy initiation and whether therapy initiation becomes sustained patient outcomes. Call plans were designed to manage activity. Customer context requires organizations to manage journeys. The Field Force in the Era of Customer Context Recognizing customer context as the defining commercial variable inevitably reshapes how the role of the field force is understood. For decades the pharmaceutical sales representative has been positioned primarily as the carrier of scientific information. Call plans optimized the frequency and sequencing of these interactions to ensure that physicians received consistent messaging. That role does not disappear, but the environment surrounding it has changed profoundly. Physicians today are navigating administrative burden, payer complexity, digital information overload, and increasing time pressure. In this environment they are not simply seeking more information. They are seeking clarity, simplicity, and support that helps them navigate the complexity surrounding treatment decisions. This shift transforms the representative from a messenger of information into something far more valuable: a partner in removing friction from the care journey. Conversations move beyond repeating clinical claims toward understanding the practical barriers that physicians and their teams face as they attempt to initiate and sustain therapy for patients. The most effective field forces are therefore supported by commercial systems designed around journeys rather than activities. Representatives are equipped not only with scientific messaging but with the insight and coordination required to address obstacles across prescribing, reimbursement, and patient support. Field engagement becomes a catalyst for problem solving rather than simply a vehicle for promotion. From Call Plans to Customer-Aligned Commercial Systems If customer context has become the defining commercial variable, then the systems designed to support the field must evolve accordingly. The traditional call plan was built to manage activity. It provided structure for how frequently physicians were engaged, how territories were covered, and how resources were deployed. Yet activity alone does not determine whether therapies ultimately reach patients. What determines impact is whether the commercial system surrounding the physician reduces or increases the burden of delivering care. A customer-aligned commercial system begins with the journeys through which physicians help patients move from diagnosis to treatment and beyond. Marketing clarifies the scientific story. Sales provides trusted relationships and real-time understanding of physician needs. Access teams simplify reimbursement pathways. Patient support programs reduce administrative burden. Digital engagement reinforces and extends human interaction. The result is a commercial system that operates less like disconnected functions and more like an integrated network designed to help physicians help patients. This is the essence of Customer Excellence. It aligns the entire commercial enterprise around the real-world context in which care is delivered. The problem was never the call plan. The problem was the context. Key Takeaways Commercial performance in pharma organizations has traditionally been managed through field execution mechanics, yet the effectiveness of those mechanics increasingly depends on how well they reflect the real-world context in which physicians operate. Customer context has become the most pivotal commercial variable as administrative burden, payer complexity, and consumer-grade expectations reshape how prescribing decisions are made. HCPs now evaluate pharmaceutical engagement against the best experiences they encounter anywhere in their lives, raising the standard for clarity, responsiveness, and ease. Optimizing promotional activity alone is no longer sufficient. Commercial success depends on reducing friction across the journeys physicians navigate as they move patients from diagnosis to treatment. Customer Excellence represents the structural response, aligning marketing, sales, access, digital engagement, and patient support around the real journeys of care delivery . Diagnostic Questions to Consider Are we optimizing the activity of our field force, or designing commercial systems that support the real journeys physicians navigate to help patients receive therapy? How well do we understand the administrative, reimbursement, and operational barriers physicians encounter after they decide to prescribe a therapy? Do our commercial systems reduce the burden placed on physicians and their staff , or unintentionally add to the complexity of care delivery? Are we benchmarking our engagement against other pharma companies , or against the best experiences physicians encounter in their lives as consumers? Have our investments in digital platforms simplified the physician’s experience, or multiplied the number of disconnected interactions they must manage? Are we still managing performance through activity metrics alone , or beginning to understand the context that ultimately determines whether therapies reach patients? Closing Reflection The pharma and life sciences industry has spent decades refining the mechanics of field execution. Call plans, segmentation models, and targeting systems brought structure and discipline to commercial organizations. Yet the environment surrounding physicians has evolved far more rapidly than the systems built to support them. Healthcare professionals now operate in a world defined by consumer-grade expectations for clarity, responsiveness, and ease. When the experience of engaging with a pharmaceutical company fails to reflect those expectations, the contrast becomes impossible to ignore. Organizations that recognize this shift will redesign their commercial systems around the realities of modern care delivery. They will move beyond managing activity and toward understanding the context in which physicians help patients receive treatment. In doing so they will close the gap between scientific innovation and real-world impact. Your breakthrough science deserves experiences worthy of it. Together, we turn customer excellence into real-world impact. About the Author Wayne Simmons is a hands-on commercial excellence architect and founder of The Customer Excellence Agency, where he partners with pharmaceutical and life sciences leaders to turn customer-centric ambition into durable commercial advantage. He previously served as Global Customer Excellence Lead within Pfizer’s Chief Marketing Organization and has held leadership roles with Bayer Pharmaceuticals and The Ritz-Carlton Leadership Center. Wayne writes The Customer-Centric Marketer newsletter and is the author of The Customer Excellence Enterprise: A Playbook for Creating Customers for Life. The Customer Excellence Agency: Advancing the Pursuit of Excellence in Service of Science.
Tan building with a hanging sign against a clear blue sky
By Wayne Simmons • June 12, 2025
Part five of the Starbucks Customer Excellence Series. Reconstructing the brand pyramid so that experience, not just product, carries the promise.
Coffee shop barista serving drinks behind the counter with menu boards and espresso machines.
By Wayne Simmons • June 12, 2025
Part four of the Starbucks Customer Excellence Series. Why corporate culture stays abstract until it is defined as a platform for delivering the experience.
Industrial-style café with large windows, people seated at tables, and a bright wooden counter
By Wayne Simmons • June 12, 2025
Part three of the Starbucks Customer Excellence Series. What the brand lost when it scaled, and what recapturing its mystique would require.
A starbucks logo is on the screen of a cell phone
By Wayne Simmons • June 12, 2025
Part two of the Starbucks Customer Excellence Series. How a highly successful digital innovation can erode the experience it was built to serve.
Starbucks sign on a beige building against a clear blue sky
By Wayne Simmons • June 12, 2025
The final part of the Starbucks Customer Excellence Series. How an experience delivery system is redesigned so excellence is repeatable rather than heroic.