We ran across a brand new (PDF creation date, Sept 3rd) report from Swoop that looks at one of our favorite subjects: actual patients' reactions to pharma media. We often complain about "armchair quarterbacks" opining about the pharma industry when in reality they are not affected. Actual patients find them valuable, as shown here.

To get this data, Swoop used its new subsidiary, MyHealthTeams, to survey 902 actual patients, and filter out non-patients, between March and July this year.

This chart is a cascade, so there is sample bias built into it, albeit very little. The 83% and following stats are of the 97% of patients that have seen ads, so the sample size is missing the 3% of patients that probably have seen pharma ads but don't remember (opinionated observation, I'll leave it -Ed.).

The data we would love to see, and which Swoop almost certainly has, is the channel breakdown of the 97%. Since the company is independent again, Swoop folks, reply to this email if you want to talk.

A treatment, especially a newly-developed one, helps no one if it is unknown. Note that the top two benefits are awareness and then discussions with the doctor.

A full two-thirds of patients took some form of action after being exposed to pharma messages. This shows the difference between the total audience (your media stats) and just the patient audience that cares about the condition (these stats). This chart also shows that over half (53%) took actions specific to treatments.

The full report also has frequency of ad exposures (78% are weekly or more) and data on pharma advertising. Because of it's focus on patients and not "armchair quarterbacks" this report gets our much-sought-after-but-enigmatic "must download" award.

This report from earlier in the year from the VAB really wants marketers to look at TV spend, but it provides plenty of evidence that digital is where it's at.

We can see that pharma marketers seem to like this breakdown as digital and TV are growing at approximately the same rate. 

It's no surprise that digital features so heavily as a majority of patients say they research treatments actively before and after talking to their doctor. Search marketers rejoice. 

All that said, if TV, and especially addressable TV, is your jam then check out the full report.

A 241-page report on AI in healthcare was commissioned by the EU Directorate General For Health and Food Safety. The report provides a one-stop shop for anyone wanting to get up to speed with AI-related EU regulations, industry usage and predictions for AI, and future considerations.

The scope of the report is vast so we focused in on two charts for Wire readers.

Three groups were consulted and they have different views on how AI is being used today in EU healthcare. We have converted this data from polar charts and sorted it on Hospitals' opinions.

We can see the hospitals are currently using AI for admin efficiency but also believe it can be useful for diagnostic accuracy, likely in radiology. Developers, meanwhile, believe that AI is much better at predictive analytics for patient outcomes than hospitals or HCPs.

The same three groups were asked where they predicted AI has the most "transformative potential."

Again, hospitals were all in on admin efficiency. Developers were more positive on diagnostics than HCPs or hospitals here, maybe indicating those groups don't see it moving out of radiology any time soon.

Government-funded research into AI in health is smaller and was declining in 2024 while privately-funded (we assume) clinical trials continue to grow.

If you're interested in what the EU is doing in healthcare-related AI, definitely take a look at this omnibus report.

This report is interesting for anyone considering in-pharmacy media. It's based on a study of 2,000 US consumers with insights from the 1,917 who recognized at least one ad without a prompt. It turns out that respondents appreciated screens across the entire store visit.

Whether they want drug therapy information there is another matter, but in the right locations it could work.

YouTube is the great equalizer when it comes to US media consumption. This report on teen digital use shows that TikTok isn't the only player in that demographic. A full 91% of Americans aged 13-17 use the platform based on the survey of 1,000 teens and their parents.

For most pharma marketers the 13-17 demographic isn't really on their radar. However, 47% of American parents say that they watch content with their teen several times a week or more often (25% daily). And what platform comes out ahead on this co-watching? YouTube again, even ahead of NetFlix.

When asked if they recalled ads on the different platforms, once again YouTube hits the top of the charts. 

Notice how high up Facebook is here. It's not on the teen-only chart but when parents are around it sneaks into the rankings up with Instagram and TikTok.

A study published in the NIH National Library of Medicine highlights the lack of physician oversight in many rural ERs. For any therapies used there, NP and PA strategies may be essential.

The study includes a map that highlights how severe the issue can be in some states.

A study by NORC shows valuable information and highlights important risks about unregulated patient information on social media. But the contortions it goes through to try and pin the blame on pharma companies borders on comical.

The title of the press release is "New Data Highlight Gaps in Oversight of Prescription Drug Promotion on Social Media." Anyone reading that will naturally assume that "promotion" here would be from the pharma companies but that is not what the study covers.

The first paragraph seems to start clarifying this, but then immediately turns to the conspiracy theory that pharma is somehow sponsoring all of these voices with no disclosure.

There's an easy answer to content lacking clear disclosures of pharma sponsorship: it's not sponsored. The study was on GLP-1s, ADHD therapies, and autoimmune biologics; some drug classes that get a lot of public attention.

The researchers make outrageous claims and provide absolutely no evidence. Highlight, NORC's:

We have contracted hundreds of influencers across many brands and can say with authority that no pharma company we work with would ever do so without the FDA-required identification.

With the number of people posting about GLP-1 therapies especially, there can be off-label things said. That's not pharma's fault. If you make a product that works, people will talk about it. But that can result in misinformation or incomplete information in these unsponsored posts. (These charts come from the actual study article from NORC.)

This content can then filter through to discussions with HCPs, 69% of whom say they have conversations sparked by social content. When asked about their concerns about these discussions it's the same misconceptions they have with Dr. Google:

Like the Bloomberg Law article we highlighted in late 2023, this study is based on a real issue—uncontrolled patient discussions—but unrealistically tries to pin the blame on pharma companies. If you read the source maybe try meditation afterwards to lower your blood pressure (don't talk to the readers, but good advice -Ed.).

We took the full transcript of the Energy & Commerce hearing on medical AI and made a GPT for it. Try it out.

Some of the more important discussion revolved around AI use in prior authorizations and the "perverse incentives" for tech providers.

Don't take our word for it though, try out the GPT and ask it to summarize the meeting.

The walled gardens aren't allowed to expose a lot of confidential information and that means that we can no longer directly target health conditions etc. (yeah, years ago you could do that). 

However, that doesn't stop algorithms from matching ad content and potential viewer interest. Retailers are trying out Meta's Advantage+ AI matching algorithms and apparently liking the results.

A story in last week's Harris Poll roundup showed how Gen Z and Millennials view AI. Millennials only stopping point was AI taking human jobs.

It's not terribly surprising to learn that most impulse purchases are handled on Amazon. The advertising, selection, plus the speed of checkout makes the platform almost custom-made for impulse buys.

What is perhaps more interesting for health marketers, who live in the world of long consideration phases and not impulse buys, is the time and day that this activity happens. Does this mean that information is more ingestible then?

Infegy did some back-to-school social listening and found that the most common emotion is joy, across all the age groups.