- Case Study #2
A Psychological Approach to Driving a 6% Sales Increase for a Breakthrough MS Therapy
Imagine a middle-aged man sitting a wheelchair unable to walk, or to travel independently to work everyday in Helsinki. Fast forward, and consider this same man, now free of his wheelchair, standing upright in the tram.
The difference?
A new medication for multiple sclerosis (MS).
The Client
This biotech company believed there was untapped potential for its life-changing MS treatment, supported by compelling clinical data. And yet at only 2%, the update of this pioneering therapy was inexplicably low.
Why neurologists were reluctant to prescribe this treatment remained a riddle in the face of compelling safety and efficacy data. The treatment works, but hardly anyone is using it.
The Challenge
The new class of drugs for treating MS was highly destabilising for many neurologists who nonetheless rationally recognised the drug’s potential. Seeking to understand the neurologists’ mindsets might help solve the puzzle.
On the medical spectrum, neurologists are known to be the most risk averse – compare them to battle field surgeons who in a way have nothing to lose when the make their decisions about the patient.
So, the challenge became one of trying to better understand why the reticence of the neurologists made psychological sense.
Our Approach
Working alongside Professors Kegan and Lahey from Harvard, I initiated the project using their ‘Immunity to Change’ methodology.
We wanted to answer the question, ‘why doctors don’t choose this treatment even though they want to’. Our research target comprised physicians open to the possibility of prescribing but nonetheless reticent.
Through our 1:1 interviews we uncovered a number of core concerns about choosing the new medication that went beyond the purely logical. For example, identity as a neurologist – a need to refashion the profession as more interventionist and multi-disciplinary.
A second source of hesitancy is the personality of the neurologist. They are typically conservative, reluctant to take risks or cause trouble, perfectionistic, sceptical of positive claims, solitary, preferring to diagnose as experts more than to intervene. They also disclosed the practical fear of low compliance in monitoring their MS patients as the new treatment only required annual check-ups.
This was a challenge for the neurologist though preferable for the patient to meet annually instead of monthly. From our research based on several 1:1 structured interviews, we identified a series of significant assumptions. These underpinned their treatment ethos of ‘do no harm’, and ‘take it slow and see’. Data from these interviews led to a different conception of risk and treatment objectives.
The Outcomes
My colleagues and I trained the sales force on how to make physicians aware of their competing commitments.
Rather than pushing the medical data as a way to sell, the neurologists were made aware of their likely implicit concerns about prescribing.
Through this research and training, sales of the MS treatment increased by 6%. Understanding the mindsets of the prescribing neurologists proved to be more valuable than simply appealing to a rational, logical analysis of the data.