KidCARE TV Promotional EvaluationNINE MONTH TEST/POST-TEST ASSESSMENTPresentation by: IMS Health Consulting & CARE Media H...
Agenda• Objective• Research Methodology• Methodology Assumptions• Study Results• ConclusionsPromo.Return CARE Media Holdin...
Objective• To assess the impact of CARE Media Holding’s KidCARE TV  program that is being evaluated on Product X on prescr...
Agenda• Objective• Research Methodology• Methodology Assumptions• Study Results• ConclusionsPromo.Return CARE Media Holdin...
Research Methodology• Impact of KidCARE TV programming for Product X is assessed  using IMS Consulting’s Promotion Evaluat...
Agenda• Objectives• Research Methodology• Methodology Assumptions• Study Results• ConclusionsPromo.Return CARE Media Holdi...
Research Methodology• Impact of CARE Media’s KidCARE TV for Product X is assessed  using IMS Consulting’s Promotion Evalua...
Study Time Periods• Test physicians were initially exposed to the KidCARE TV promotion  during April 2010• NRx data for th...
Test Group                             2,264 Physicians participated in                               the KidCARE TV progr...
Statistical Approaches  • ANCOVA was used to measure statistical significance of the    difference between the post-test N...
Control Group Selection• 1,888 potential Test physicians were matched to the IMS  Health prescriber universe to identify p...
Methodology Assumptions• Test and Control group physicians are assumed to have  similar levels of exposure to promotional ...
Quality Control Procedures• Two different quality control procedures were utilized as  necessary to ensure that sporadic r...
Agenda• Objective• Research Methodology• Methodology Assumptions• Study Results• ConclusionsPromo.Return CARE Media Holdin...
Product X NRx Comparison        During the nine month post period, Test physicians prescribed 3.0% more Product X NRx     ...
Competitor NRx Comparison Test physicians prescribed 1.1% more Competitor NRx compared to Control physicians. This change ...
Market NRx Comparison Test physicians prescribed 1.5% more Market NRx compared to Control physicians. This change in presc...
Product X NRx Share ComparisonDuring the nine month test/post-test period, Product X NRx share decreased to agreater exten...
Product X Physician Penetration ReportPhysician penetration decreased to a lesser extent among Test than Control, resultin...
Comparison of the Impact of KidCARE TV on                   Physicians by Specialty                                       ...
Participants Breakout by Specialty                                    Physician        Specialty                          ...
Product X NRx Volume Comparison by Specialty Test Specialists prescribed 2.5% (cl=80.80%) more Product X NRx compared to C...
Competitor NRx Volume Comparison by Specialty Test Specialists prescribed 1.5% (cl=72.70%) more Competitor NRx compared to...
Market NRx Volume Comparison by Specialty Test Specialists prescribed 1.8% (cl=83.25%) more Market NRx compared to Control...
Product X NRx Share Comparison by SpecialtyThe program increased Product X NRx share among All Others with statisticalsign...
Physician Penetration Comparison by SpecialtyPhysician penetration increased among All Others to a greater extent than amo...
ROI Analysis – Methodology                           • Calculate Average Product TRx (average retail price for a    Step I...
Agenda• Objective• Research Methodology• Methodology Assumptions• Study Results• ConclusionsPromo.Return CARE Media Holdin...
Conclusions• The KidCARE TV promotion for Product X was successful at  increasing Product X NRx volume and share with stat...
Conclusions• The KidCARE TV promotion for was successful at increasing  Product X NRx volume and share with statistical si...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

KidCARE TV Promotional Evaluation

732 views
671 views

Published on

Results of research analysis to assess the impact of CARE Media Holding’s KidCARE TV program; evaluated on Product X on prescribing behavior of participating physicians using a nine month test/post-test period.

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
732
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
8
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

KidCARE TV Promotional Evaluation

  1. 1. KidCARE TV Promotional EvaluationNINE MONTH TEST/POST-TEST ASSESSMENTPresentation by: IMS Health Consulting & CARE Media Holdings Corp.
  2. 2. Agenda• Objective• Research Methodology• Methodology Assumptions• Study Results• ConclusionsPromo.Return CARE Media Holdings KidCARE TV Final Report • February 20112
  3. 3. Objective• To assess the impact of CARE Media Holding’s KidCARE TV program that is being evaluated on Product X on prescribing behavior of participating physicians using a nine month test/post-test period Product X KidCARE TV Incremental for NRx?• This analysis is limited to participants who began exposure during April 2010Promo.Return CARE Media Holdings KidCARE TV Final Report • February 20113
  4. 4. Agenda• Objective• Research Methodology• Methodology Assumptions• Study Results• ConclusionsPromo.Return CARE Media Holdings KidCARE TV Final Report • February 20114
  5. 5. Research Methodology• Impact of KidCARE TV programming for Product X is assessed using IMS Consulting’s Promotion EvaluationSM methodology − Paired comparison analysis to measure changes in the product of new prescription writing behavior of a Test group relative to a similar group of Control physicians − Utilizes physician-level new prescription data* that is “raw,” or not projected, which removes any potential bias that might be introduced by projection*Data source: IMS Health’s prescriber prescription databasePromo.Return CARE Media Holdings KidCARE TV Final Report • February 20115
  6. 6. Agenda• Objectives• Research Methodology• Methodology Assumptions• Study Results• ConclusionsPromo.Return CARE Media Holdings KidCARE TV Final Report • February 20116
  7. 7. Research Methodology• Impact of CARE Media’s KidCARE TV for Product X is assessed using IMS Consulting’s Promotion EvaluationSM methodology – Paired comparison analysis to measure changes in Product X new prescription writing behavior of a Test group relative to a similar group of Control physicians – Utilizes physician-level new prescription data* that is “raw,” or not projected, which removes any potential bias that might be introduced by projection *Data source: IMS Health’s prescriber prescription databasePromo.Return CARE Media Holdings KidCARE TV Final Report • February 20117
  8. 8. Study Time Periods• Test physicians were initially exposed to the KidCARE TV promotion during April 2010• NRx data for the same nine months during the previous year (as compared to the post-test period during the current year) is used as the pre-test period• NRx data for the test month and following eight months of exposure (test/post-test period) reflects prescribing behavior influenced by the KidCARE TV promotion Pre-Test Period Test/Post-Test Period 9 Months 9 Months Apr – Dec 2009 Apr – Dec 2010Promo.Return CARE Media Holdings KidCARE TV Final Report • February 20118
  9. 9. Test Group 2,264 Physicians participated in the KidCARE TV program for 1,888 Physicians qualified as potential Test physicians (successfully matched to the IMS Health prescriber universe) 1,831 Physicians had a matched Control 1,548 Physicians 283 Physicians were Specialists were All Other SpecialtiesPromo.Return CARE Media Holdings KidCARE TV Final Report • February 20119
  10. 10. Statistical Approaches • ANCOVA was used to measure statistical significance of the difference between the post-test NRx volume generated by the Test and Control physicians – Adjustments were made in the post-test period to eliminate any pre- test period differences between the Test and Control groups – Program success was determined by looking for an Index of Adjusted Means (IAM) above “1” with a p-value <0.10, i.e., a confidence level >90% showing that the result is not due to chance • Z-tests were performed to determine the effectiveness of the program on – Product X NRx share, defined as the ratio of Product X NRx over market NRx, and – Product X physician penetration, defined as the number of physicians writing at least one prescription for Product XPromo.Return Client Product Study Name • Month 201010
  11. 11. Control Group Selection• 1,888 potential Test physicians were matched to the IMS Health prescriber universe to identify potential Control physicians based on the following criteria: − Product X NRx during the pre-test period; − Product X’s competitors NRx in the pre-test period; − Sales force promotion; − MD geography; and − MD specialty• 1,831 Test physicians were successfully matched to a Control physicianPromo.Return CARE Media Holdings KidCARE TV Final Report • February 201111
  12. 12. Methodology Assumptions• Test and Control group physicians are assumed to have similar levels of exposure to promotional activity for the duration of the study time period − Cannot control for disproportionate changes in promotional levels in the post-program exposure time period• Managed care influences are also assumed to be similar between the Test and Control physicians − Cannot control for disproportionate changes in patient flow or patient health care plans at any time of the study time periodPromo.Return CARE Media Holdings KidCARE TV Final Report • February 201112
  13. 13. Quality Control Procedures• Two different quality control procedures were utilized as necessary to ensure that sporadic reporters do not bias the results − Constant Store Panel – a pharmacy must report prescription activity in each study period month to be included in the analysis − Active Writers – a physician must generate at least one prescription during the most current three months to be included in the analysisPromo.Return CARE Media Holdings KidCARE TV Final Report • February 201113
  14. 14. Agenda• Objective• Research Methodology• Methodology Assumptions• Study Results• ConclusionsPromo.Return CARE Media Holdings KidCARE TV Final Report • February 201114
  15. 15. Product X NRx Comparison During the nine month post period, Test physicians prescribed 3.0% more Product X NRx compared to Control physicians. This change in prescribing behavior is statistically significant (cl=89.96%). 12000 10000Product X NRx 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Test Product X Control Product XNote: cl = Confidence level; if cl >= 90% the program impact is significant, cl=80-90% is directional,else it is non-significant. Analysis conducted : ANCOVA.Promo.Return CARE Media Holdings KidCARE TV Final Report • February 201115
  16. 16. Competitor NRx Comparison Test physicians prescribed 1.1% more Competitor NRx compared to Control physicians. This change in prescribing behavior is not statistically significant (cl=58.37%). 40000 35000 30000 Competitor NRx 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 Test Competitor Control CompetitorNote: cl = Confidence level; if cl >= 90% the program impact is significant, cl=80-90% is directional,else it is non-significant. Analysis conducted : ANCOVA.Promo.Return CARE Media Holdings KidCARE TV Final Report • February 201116
  17. 17. Market NRx Comparison Test physicians prescribed 1.5% more Market NRx compared to Control physicians. This change in prescribing behavior is directional (cl=79.59%). 50000 45000 40000 35000 Market NRx 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 Test Market Control MarketNote: cl = Confidence level; if cl >= 90% the program impact is significant, cl=80-90% is directional,else it is non-significant. Analysis conducted : ANCOVA.Promo.Return CARE Media Holdings KidCARE TV Final Report • February 201117
  18. 18. Product X NRx Share ComparisonDuring the nine month test/post-test period, Product X NRx share decreased to agreater extent among Control physicians than Test physicians, resulting in a statisticallysignificant difference in share change of +0.4 share points (cl=97.71%). 0.3 point 0.6 point decrease decrease 25.3% 25.2% 25.2% 25.2% 25.1% Product X NRx Share 25.0% 24.9% 24.9% 24.8% 24.7% 24.6% 24.5% 24.5% 24.4% 24.3% 24.2% Test Group Control Group Pre-Test Test/Post-Test Note: Analysis conducted : Z-test.Promo.Return CARE Media Holdings KidCARE TV Final Report • February 201118
  19. 19. Product X Physician Penetration ReportPhysician penetration decreased to a lesser extent among Test than Control, resulting ina net increase of 0.7 points. The results are not statistically significant (cl=34.98%). 0.8 point 1.4 point decrease 90.0% decrease 89.8% 89.8% 89.5% MD Penetration 89.1% 89.0% 88.5% 88.4% 88.0% 87.5% Test Group Control Group Pre-Test Test/Post-TestNote: Physician Penetration is defined as the ratio of MDs writing / MDs in program. Analysisconducted : Z-testPromo.Return CARE Media Holdings KidCARE TV Final Report • February 201119
  20. 20. Comparison of the Impact of KidCARE TV on Physicians by Specialty Specialists n = 1,548 All Other Specialties n = 283Promo.Return CARE Media Holdings KidCARE TV Final Report • February 201120
  21. 21. Participants Breakout by Specialty Physician Specialty % of Total Count Specialists 1,548 85% All Others 283 15% Total 1,831 100% Physician % of Total Physicians All Other Specialties Count with Patients Enrolled Specialty C 117 41% Specialty D 39 14% Specialty E 14 5% All Others (individual specialties 113 40% comprising of less than 7%) Total 283 100%Promo.Return CARE Media Holdings KidCARE TV Final Report • February 201121
  22. 22. Product X NRx Volume Comparison by Specialty Test Specialists prescribed 2.5% (cl=80.80%) more Product X NRx compared to Control physicians, as All Other Test physicians prescribed 8.7% (cl=87.00%) more NRx. These changes in prescribing behavior are directional. 12000 10000 Product X NRx 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Specialists Test Product X Specialists Control Product X All Others Test Product X All Others Control Product XNote: cl = Confidence level; if cl >= 90% the program impact is significant, cl=80-90% is directional,else it is non-significant. Analysis conducted : ANCOVA.Promo.Return CARE Media Holdings KidCARE TV Final Report • February 201122
  23. 23. Competitor NRx Volume Comparison by Specialty Test Specialists prescribed 1.5% (cl=72.70%) more Competitor NRx compared to Control physicians, as All Other Test physicians prescribed 2.2% (cl=49.33%) fewer Competitor NRx. However, these changes in prescribing behavior are not statistically significant. 35000 30000 25000 Competitor NRx 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 Specialists Test Competitor Specialtists Control Competitor Competitor All Others Test Competitor All Others Control CompetitorNote: cl = Confidence level; if cl >= 90% the program impact is significant, cl=80-90% is directional,else it is non-significant. Analysis conducted : ANCOVA.Promo.Return CARE Media Holdings KidCARE TV Final Report • February 201123
  24. 24. Market NRx Volume Comparison by Specialty Test Specialists prescribed 1.8% (cl=83.25%) more Market NRx compared to Control physicians, as All Other Test physicians prescribed 0.3% (cl=6.98%) fewer Market NRx. Specialist changes in prescribing behavior are directional, All Others are not statistically significant. 45000 40000 35000 30000 Market NRx 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 Specialists Test Market Specialists Control Market All Others Test Market All Others Control MarketNote: cl = Confidence level; if cl >= 90% the program impact is significant, cl=80-90% is directional,else it is non-significant. Analysis conducted : ANCOVA.Promo.Return CARE Media Holdings KidCARE TV Final Report • February 201124
  25. 25. Product X NRx Share Comparison by SpecialtyThe program increased Product X NRx share among All Others with statisticalsignificance. Specialists increased share to a lesser extent, and without statisticalsignificance. Specialists All Others A non-significant net increase among A significant net increase among Test Test of 0.2 share points (cl=75.75%) of 1.6 share points (cl=99.97%) 30% 25.7% 25.4% 25.9% 25.3% 25% Specialists NRx Share 20.3% 20.7% 20% 19.0% 17.7% 15% 10% 5% 0% Test Group Control Group Test Group Control Group Pre-Test Test/Post-Test Note: Analysis conducted : Z-test.Promo.Return CARE Media Holdings KidCARE TV Final Report • February 201125
  26. 26. Physician Penetration Comparison by SpecialtyPhysician penetration increased among All Others to a greater extent than among Specialists.However, results are not statistically significant. Specialists All Others A non-significant net increase of 0.4 A non-significant net increase of 2.1 points (cl=26.29%) points (cl=28.49%) 100% 94.9% 94.4% 94.9% 94.0% 90% 80% % Physician Penetration 70% 62.2% 60.1% 62.2% 58.0% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Test Group Control Group Test Group Control Group Pre-Test Test/Post-TestNote: Physician Penetration is defined as the ratio of MDs writing / MDs in program. Analysisconducted : Z-testPromo.Return CARE Media Holdings KidCARE TV Final Report • February 201126
  27. 27. ROI Analysis – Methodology • Calculate Average Product TRx (average retail price for a Step I prescription) = TRx sales/ 9 month study period (for ) is $148.30 (source: IMS NPA Plus – TRx retail price) • Calculate Revenue Associated with Test Physicians = Step II Projected Product X TRx x Average Product Price 350,703 x $148.30 = $52,008,378 • Calculate Revenue Associated with Control Physicians = Projected Product X TRx for Control Physicians* x Average Step III Product Price 340,488 x $148.30 = $50,493,519 • Incremental Revenue due to the program = Revenue Associated with Test Physicians – Revenue Associated with Step IV Control Physicians $52,008,378 - $50,493,519 = $1,514,859 • Return on Investment = Incremental Revenue from program/ Step V Cost of the program $1,514,859/$236,460 = 6.4:1 or $1,278,399Note: Projected Product TRx for Control physicians calculated using Index of Adjusted Means (1.03) from ANCOVA, whichmeans Test physicians wrote 3.0% more NRx than Control physicians during a 9 month post-test period.Promo.Return CARE Media Holdings KidCARE TV Final Report • February 2011
  28. 28. Agenda• Objective• Research Methodology• Methodology Assumptions• Study Results• ConclusionsPromo.Return CARE Media Holdings KidCARE TV Final Report • February 201128
  29. 29. Conclusions• The KidCARE TV promotion for Product X was successful at increasing Product X NRx volume and share with statistical significance. During the latter months of the post-test period, Test group appears to be outperforming the Control group as evidenced by the separation in trend lines. The program also retained writers as indicated by the positive result for physician penetration, however results are not statistically significant. − Among the specialties, Specialists increased Product X NRx directionally, with a non-significant increase in share. All Others showed a directional increase in NRx volume, with a significant increase in share. − Both specialty groups showed non-significant increases in physician penetration.Promo.Return CARE Media Holdings KidCARE TV Final Report • February 201129
  30. 30. Conclusions• The KidCARE TV promotion for was successful at increasing Product X NRx volume and share with statistical significance. During the latter months of the post-test period, Test group appears to be outperforming the Control group as evidenced by the separation in trend lines. The program also retained writers as indicated by the positive result for physician penetration, however results are not statistically significant. − Among the specialties, Specialists increased NRx directionally, with a non-significant increase in share. All Others showed a directional increase in NRx volume, with a significant increase in share. − Both specialty groups showed non-significant increases in physician penetration.Promo.Return CARE Media Holdings KidCARE TV Final Report • February 201130

×