Who Should Own Customer Experience in a Pharma Company?
Nobody should own customer experience in your company, and the fact that you are asking is the diagnosis.
I know how that sounds from someone who did the job. Hear the argument out, because the ownership question is the one that sinks these programs, and it sinks them in a specific and avoidable way.
Why is "who owns CX" the wrong question?
Because it assumes experience is a thing rather than a property of a system.
Put a function in charge of it and you have created a department that is accountable for an outcome it cannot produce. Your CX team does not control the prior authorization process, the hub vendor, the copay program, the field call plan, the medical information line or the specialty pharmacy. It can observe all of them. It can influence some of them. It can change none of them.
So the team builds the only thing it can build on its own. A survey, a dashboard and a quarterly readout. Then someone senior asks what the business should do differently, and the honest answer is a list of improvements nobody outside the room is accountable for.
Ask the question differently. Not who owns experience, but who owns the places where your customers stop moving.
What actually breaks, and where?
The seams. Almost always the seams.
Here is the pattern I saw over and over. Access hits its formulary targets. The hub hits its service level, the field hits its call plan, medical answers every inquiry inside the window, and patient support closes its cases.
Every function clears its bar, and your patient still waits eleven days between a benefit check and a prior authorization submission, because each group believed the other had it.
Nobody failed. The handoff failed, and handoffs have no owner on your org chart.
The industry wide version shows up in Deloitte's 2025 research. It 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. That is not a gap in effort. That is what it looks like when every function measures its own piece and nobody measures the path through all of them.
So where should it report?
Inside commercial, on a leader who already carries brand numbers.
You have four realistic options and three of them are worse. A standalone function reporting to the CEO sounds powerful and is the easiest to cut, because it owns no revenue. Parking it under patient services makes it a support cost rather than a growth lever, and it will be managed as one. Leaving it in marketing works only if your marketing leader actually controls access and field, which in most companies is not true.
Put the measures on the commercial leader who owns the brand P&L, and give that leader a small team whose job is the seams rather than the surveys. The team is the instrument. The accountability stays with the person who already answers for the number.
That is what we mean when we call Customer Excellence the fourth pillar of commercial excellence rather than a function beside the other three.
What does the owner actually own?
Four things, and none of them is a score.
The progression numbers for the brand. Script to start conversion, time to therapy, persistence, barrier resolution speed, and realized value against earned value. The named seams, each with a second name attached to it, so that the gap between access and patient support belongs to a person rather than to a diagram. The escalation path, which is what happens in the hours after a stall is detected rather than in the quarter after it is reported. Last, the signal route from the field, because your reps meet a new payer policy weeks before any dashboard registers it.
That last one matters more as access tightens. Veeva Pulse data reported by BioSpace found 45% of HCPs accessible to biopharma, down from 60% eighteen months earlier. If your field sees something and has nowhere to put it, you are wasting the scarcest input you have.
Will legal and regulatory let you do this?
Mostly yes, and the belief that they will not is doing more damage than the rules are.
Regulation governs claims. What you may say about efficacy and safety, to whom, through which channel, in which market. Those constraints are real, they are not negotiable, and they are not what is slowing your patients down.
Regulation says almost nothing about operational burden. No rule requires a prior authorization to take three calls. No rule requires a hub to ask for the same information twice. 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. Almost none of that is a regulatory requirement.
Bring your medical, legal and regulatory colleagues in at design rather than at review and most of this disappears. In my experience the ones who say no are usually saying no to a plan they saw for the first time on a Thursday.
How do you know the ownership is real?
It survives a bad quarter.
That is the whole test. A program with its own budget line, its own team and its own dashboard can be cut in a downturn without anything else changing, which is precisely why it gets cut. Measures that sit on a commercial leader's scorecard cannot be removed without removing part of how the brand is run.
Ask yourself the uncomfortable version. If your CX team were dissolved on Monday, which commercial numbers would change by Friday? If the answer is none, you do not have an ownership problem. You have a program that was never load bearing.
The companies moving fastest here are not resolving this with an org chart. When Eli Lilly launched LillyDirect, David Ricks framed it around how the healthcare system "adds to the burdens patients face". Novartis launched its Cosentyx platform because, in its US president's words, the company needs "new ways to reach patients more directly by removing barriers in the system." Neither of those is a CX function. Both are commercial system changes aimed at burden, owned by commercial leaders, and that is the shape of the answer.
Key takeaways
- Giving a function ownership of experience creates accountability for an outcome that function cannot produce.
- Your failures live in the seams between access, hub, field, medical and patient support, and seams have no owner on an org chart.
- Put the progression measures on the commercial leader who already carries the brand P&L, with a small team that works the seams rather than the surveys.
- Regulation governs claims, not burden, so most of what you have attributed to legal and regulatory is unowned rather than forbidden.
- The test of real ownership is whether the work survives a bad quarter.
Questions to ask your leadership team
- Name the three seams where your patients wait longest, and the person accountable for each.
- When a patient stalls, who finds out, how quickly, and what are they authorized to change?
- Which commercial leader has a progression measure on their scorecard this year?
- How many of the constraints you attribute to regulation have you tested with your medical, legal and regulatory colleagues in the last twelve months?
- If the CX team were dissolved on Monday, what would change by Friday?
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, What is the ROI of customer experience in pharma? and How to measure customer experience in pharma







