Home > Back to Publisher > Report Information

KOL Fair-Market Value and Aggregate Spend

Cutting Edge Information
October 1, 2011
314 Pages - SKU: CIGQ6644850

Abstract Table of Contents Related Reports

Countries covered: United States

Prepare for The Sunshine Act Since Cutting Edge Information’s 2009 study on KOL fair-market value compensation, the United States has passed legislation to regulate all payments made by life sciences companies to physicians. The impact of the Sunshine Act is already being felt as pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical device companies invest millions of dollars to implement aggregate spend tracking systems. These systems are critical components in remaining compliant and meeting the requirements laid out in the Sunshine Act. Our study reveals the most sought-after characteristics of a top-notch documentation system and the best practices for implementing one that will stand up to regulatory scrutiny. Over the past few years, other changes have altered the KOL landscape. KOLs themselves are beginning to push back against the increased scrutiny surrounding their industry relationships. In addition, legislation resulting in increased transparency has caused the overall KOL pool to shrink. These factors raise new challenges: How are companies navigating these regulatory hurdles? What are they doing to find and cultivate successful KOL relationships? What are the most effective activities for which to utilize KOLs? Our report answers these questions and more, with detailed case studies and best practices to augment our data and recommendations.

Additional Information

Excerpts

Physician Fee Schedules Report Sample

The following excerpt is taken from Chapter 5, “Analysis of Aggregate FMV Payment Data.” The full chapter examines the aggregated FMV benchmarks for Top 25, Top 50 and Top 100 drug manufacturers, as well as device and diagnostic companies. It details average, median, minimum and maximum hourly rates and flat fees paid for consulting, advisory and speaking services.

Hourly Rates for KOL Activities

The values in this excerpt have been intentionally blinded. The full study provides detailed FMV benchmark analysis.

Although a smaller percentage of companies pay their KOLs by hourly rate, those that do tend to be Top 25 or Top 50 drug manufacturers. These companies develop products in across a number of specialty areas — a fact that leads to a significant amount of hourly rate data. When aggregated, the data show a familiar pattern: the more experience and specialization that a KOL has, the higher the mean payment and compensation range.

The data show that specialists earn an average base hourly rate of $XXX; those specialists with a subspecialty earn XX% more at $XXX per hour. Among survey respondent companies, the maximum hourly rate for both of these KOL categories is $XX per hour, though the subspecialist range starts at $XXX per hour rather than $XXX for specialists.

The ranges for primary care physicians, mid-level providers and allied health professionals are much smaller compared to those of specialists and subspecialists. The hourly rate range for primary care physicians, for example, is $XXX to $XXX, with an average payment of $XXX per hour. From that point, the ranges drop: mid-level providers receive an average payment of $XXX per hour in a range between $XXX and $XXX per hour; and allied health professionals are paid in a range between $XXX and $XXX, with a mean payment of $XXX per hour.

The following excerpt is taken from Chapter 1, “Trends Impacting KOL Compensation.” The full chapter examines the impact of the Sunshine Act and other regulatory and policy changes. Italso includes data that illustrates the extent of the shrinking KOL pool. Other topics explored in this chapter include the increasing restrictions placed on KOLs by academic institutions and medical publications, as well as KOLs’ reactions to greater transparency and regulations.

Specialist Relationships on the Decline

Cutting Edge Information’s research shows that the shrinking KOL pool is a consistent trend over the past five years. The environment is changing for both companies and KOLs. The pharmaceutical industry is working to address compliance concerns in the face of expanded government regulations. For their part, physicians are also dealing with restrictions from their employing academic and research institutions. Because each party is coping with change, both sides look to strengthen the relationships that are already in place.

Pharmaceutical companies cannot offer the lucrative honoraria they had in the past, forced to draw the line at fair-market value. Meanwhile, academic physicians are only able to work a pre-specified number of industry events. Surveyed pharmaceutical executives do not refute that times have changed; they simply reject the notion that thought leader management is more difficult because of it.

For thought leader management teams, any roadblocks to working with physicians decrease the overall opinion leader pool. Pharmaceutical companies unfortunately bear the consequences of a smaller thought leader pool. Companies struggling to launch novel medicines now face the prospect of filing for approval without advice from the most expert medical professionals. As more KOLs decline to work with pharmaceutical companies, clinical and marketing teams inevitably will lack knowledge of specific patient needs and other information that help develop a better product. Furthermore, the smaller thought leader pool creates a political nightmare for thought leader management executives whose goals are based on the successful relationships that they develop. It also causes development teams to turn repeatedly to those relationships already established, exacerbating the very situation causing the current problem.

Data show the rapid decline in specialist relationships with the average pharmaceutical company. Between 2006 and 2011, the number of specialist relationships has fallen by 76%. 2011 is the first year of in which Cutting Edge Information’s research found that none of the companies surveyed reported more than 1,000 specialist relationships. In 2006 and 2007, four companies reported relationships with over 1,000 specialists.

Many of the executives interviewed for this study agreed that the public reporting of physician payments is having an effect on the available pool of KOLs. The general consensus is that physicians are not excited about having their names appear on list after list of industry ties.

Companies Included in Physician Fee Schedules Research

Seven Top 25 Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology Companies
Seven Top 26 to Top 50 Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology Companies
Twelve Top 51 to Top 100 Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology Companies
Eight Medical Device, Medical Technology and Diagnostic Companies

Chapter 1: Trends Impacting KOL Compensation

Chapter Benefits:

Prepare for the Sunshine Act’s requirements by understanding how your FMV compensation strategy will be impacted.

Implement tracking systems to meet Sunshine Act requirements

Navigate the regulatory changes with succinct analysis.

Organize and centralize your KOL compensation efforts.

Learn how disclosure requirements (both federal- and state-level) will impact your KOL relationships.

Approach rising star thought leaders with different strategies than established KOLs to attract their services.

Understand how KOLs are reacting to disclosure/transparency requirements and pushing back on life sciences companies.

Understand how companies are managing the restrictions placed on KOLs by academic institutions and medical publications.

Segment your KOLs appropriately to avoid conflicts of interest with external restrictions, such as at certain hospitals.

Learn how to maintain valuable KOL relationships in a rapidly shrinking KOL pool.

Compete for top KOLs’ services by offering attractive scientific opportunities.

Chapter Metrics:

15 charts primarily showing data on the benchmarks for the number of thought leader relationships per company:

Total number of primary care physician relationships per company

Total number of mid-level provider relationships per company

Total number of allied health professional relationships per company

Average hourly rates for top-tier KOLs by year

Average number of specialist relationships per company per year

Number of companies with more than 1,000 KOL relationships per year

Total number of specialist relationships per company

Average primary care physician relationships per company

Chapter 2: Calculating Fair-Market Value

Chapter Benefits:

The FMV process is not set in stone. Learn the best practices companies have implemented to arrive at fair-market value for services.

Understand how legal and compliance teams fit into the process and how they should influence the FMV process.

Build flexibility around FMV levels to attract top KOLs while continuing to remain compliant.

Provide executives with tools to negotiate KOL compensation and resolve FMV conflicts.

Avoid over-analyzing fair-market value and arrive at a reasonable physician fee schedule.

Establish a system to identify and segment KOL targets that includes.

Establish criteria to define KOLs.

Target different KOLs based on company size and specific activity.

Chapter Metrics:

5 charts focused on the types of KOLs that companies target:

Percentage of companies that target each KOL type to build a relationship:

Percentage of Top 25 companies that target each KOL type

Percentage of Top 50 companies that target each KOL type

Percentage of Top 100 companies that target each KOL type

Percentage of Device and Diagnostic companies that target each KOL type

Chapter 3: Documenting Thought Leader Compensation

Chapter Benefits:

Understand the detailed requirements outlined in the Sunshine Act.

Create a database for storing and tracking records of KOL payments.

Implement best practices for documentation, which is an emerging and key trend in KOL compensation compliance.

Establish procedures for documentation as they will be more important to compliance than actual FMV payments.

Understand corporate integrity agreements and their implications to avoid pitfalls.

Coordinate KOL compensation practices across the board to ensure compliance

Build an FMV database using the steps outlined in this chapter.

Learn how to make your FMV database useful to the key functions across the organization.

Centralize fair-market value compensation information and setup appropriate access points to it.

Manage compensation limits

Learn how to compensate for travel expenses.

Chapter Metrics:

24 charts focused on compensation limits, the types of activities that companies pay for and travel compensation:

Top 50 pharmaceutical companies with corporate integrity agreements in place

Percentage of companies with annual caps on KOL compensation by company size:

Top 25 companies

Top 50 companies

Top 100 companies

Device and Diagnostic companies

Actual annual compensation limits for individual thought leaders

Percentage of companies whose annual caps cover specific activities:

Commercial/marketing

Research and development

Medical publications

Speaker programs/medical education events

Thought leader development

Percentage of companies that cover associated costs:

Preliminary work

Accommodations during travel

Travel method

Percentage of companies that pay for travel separate from payment for services (by company size)

Method of payment for KOLs’ travel expenses

Average flat rates for travel time (when applicable)

Method companies use to calculate KOLs' travel time (when applicable)

Percentage of companies that pay for KOLs' out-of-pocket expenses while traveling (when applicable)

Percentage of companies that pay premiums for KOLs' international travel (when applicable)

Chapter 4: Compensation for Clinical Development KOLs

Chapter Benefits:

Recruit and manage clinical KOL relationships.

Understand why clinical consulting and advisory services will be equally scrutinized compared to commercial/promotional activities and, therefore, subject to FMV procedures.

Benchmark duration of clinical and commercial activities.

Benchmark clinical compensation (flat and hourly rates).

Learn how companies identify appropriate KOLs for clinical work.

Implement best practices to invest in interpersonal networking to reach more clinical KOLs

Learn how to manage clinical KOLs

Identify additional KOLs through existing clinical relationships.

Attract KOLs by offering top-notch scientific opportunities.

Chapter Metrics:

23 charts focused on the differences in compensation for clinical vs. commercial activities:

Average duration of clinical and commercial activities

Average hourly rates and flat fees for clinical activities by provider type:

Specialists

Subspecialists

Primary care physicians

Mid-level providers

Allied health professionals

Premium increase for top-tier clinical KOLs

Percentage of companies that rely on experts/KOLs from various academic institutions:

Harvard

California system

UPenn

Tufts

Columbia

Stanford

Wash. Seattle

Dana-Farber

Wash. St. Louis

MD Anderson

Princeton

Yale

Duke

Michigan

MIT

Purdue

Vanderbilt

Chapter 5: Analysis of Aggregate FMV Payment Data

Chapter Benefits:

Benchmark fair-market value rates:

By KOL type

By company size

By activity

Benchmark both hourly rate and flat fee payments.

Understand the compensation tendencies and trends of different companies in different situations.

Learn how to compensate different KOLs at fair-market value.

Adjust your physician fee schedule based on the decreases in FMV compensation benchmarked by Cutting Edge Information.

Analyze FMV payments by KOL type, by company size and by activity.

Chapter Metrics:

44 charts focused on actual FMV payment benchmarks:

Average duration of clinical and commercial activities

Method of payment for KOL services by company type:

Average duration of KOL activities:

Participating in an advisory panel

Leading an advisory panel

Delivering a promotional speech

Delivering an educational speech

Commercial consulting engagements

Clinical consulting engagements

Average base hourly and base flat rates

by KOL Type:

By Company Size

By Activity

Appendices: Fair-Market Value Benchmarks

Chapter Benefits:

Average hourly rates and flat fees

Median hourly rates and flat fees

Minimum hourly rates and flat fees

Maximum hourly rates and flat fees

Furthermore, the data are broken down by:

Company size

Top 25

Top 50

Top 100

Device and diagnostic companies

KOL type

Specialists and subspecialists

Cardiologists

Endocrinologists

Hematologists

Neurologists

Oncologists

Surgeons

Primary care physicians

Family/general practitioners

Internists/hospitalists

Pediatricians

Preventive medicine providers

Mid-level providers

Nurse practitioners

Physician assistants

Allied health providers

Nurses

Pharmacists

Activity

Clinical consulting engagements

Commercial consulting engagements

Delivering a promotional speech

Delivering an educational speech

Leading an advisory board

Participating in an advisory board

CHARTS AND GRAPHICS

Executive Summary

Trends Impacting KOL Compensation

The Impact of Disclosures on KOL Compensation

Figure 1.1: Recent Outcome of Vermont’s Physician Payment Disclosure Requirements

Figure 1.2: Average Hourly Rates for Top-Tier KOLs by Year

Figure 1.3: Differences in Rising Stars and Established KOLs

Managing Relationships in the Shrinking KOL Pool

Figure 1.4: Average Number of Specialist Relationships Per Company by Year

Figure 1.5: Number of Companies with More than 1000 Specialist Relationships

Figure 1.6: Total Number of Specialist Relationships per Company (2011)

Figure 1.7: Average Number of Specialist Relationships Per Company (2011)

Figure 1.8: Average Primary Care Physician Relationships Per Company

Figure 1.9: Average Number of Primary Care Relationships at Top 25 Pharma Companies

Figure 1.10: Average Number of Primary Care Relationships at Top 50 Pharma Companies

Figure 1.11: Average Number of Primary Care Relationships at Top 100 Pharma Companies

Figure 1.12: Average Number of Primary Care Relationships at Device and Diagnostic Companies

Figure 1.13: Total Number of Primary Care Physician Relationships Per Company

Figure 1.14: Total Number of Mid-Level Provider Relationships per Company

Figure 1.15: Total Number of Allied Health Professional Relationships per Company

Calculating Fair-Market Value

Segmenting and Organizing Thought Leaders

Figure 2.1: Percentage of Companies that Build Relationships with Each KOL Category

Figure 2.2: Percentage of Top 25 Companies that Build Relationships with Each KOL Category

Figure 2.3: Percentage of Top 50 Companies that Build Relationships with Each KOL Category

Figure 2.4: Percentage of Top 100 Companies that Build Relationships with Each KOL Category

Figure 2.5: Percentage of Device and Diagnostic Companies that Build Relationships with Each KOL Category

Documenting Thought Leader Compensation

Figure 3.1: Top 50 Pharmaceutical Companies with Corporate Integrity Agreements (CIAs)

Figure 3.2: Percentage of Companies with Annual Caps on KOL Compensation

Figure 3.3: Percentage of Top 25 Companies with Annual Caps on KOL Compensation

Figure 3.4: Percentage of Top 50 Companies with Annual Caps on KOL Compensation

Figure 3.5: Percentage of Top 100 Companies with Annual Caps on KOL Compensation

Figure 3.6: Percentage of Device and Diagnostic Companies with Annual Caps on KOL Compensation

Figure 3.7: Annual Compensation Limits for Individual Thought Leaders

Figure 3.8: Percentage of Companies Whose Annual Caps Cover All KOL Payments

Figure 3.9: Percentage of Companies Whose Annual Compensation Limits Covers Each Activity

Figure 3.10: Percentage of Companies that Compensate for Associated KOL Costs

Travel Compensation

Figure 3.11: Percentage of top 25 Companies that Compensate for Associated KOL Costs

Figure 3.12: Percentage of Top 50 Companies that Compensate for Associated KOL Costs

Figure 3.13: Percentage of Top 100 Companies that Compensate for Associated KOL Costs

Figure 3.14: Percentage of Device and Diagnostic Companies that Compensate for Associated KOL Costs

Figure 3.15: Percentage of Companies that Make Separate Payments for KOLs’ Travel Expenses

Figure 3.16: Percentage of Top 25 Companies that Make Separate Payments for KOLs’ Travel Expenses

Figure 3.17: Percentage of Top 50 Companies that Make Separate Payments for KOLs’ Travel Expenses

Figure 3.18: Percentage of Top 100 Companies that Make Separate Payments for KOLs’ Travel Expenses

Figure 3.19: Percentage of Device and Diagnostic Companies that Make Separate Payments for KOLs’ Travel

Expenses

Figure 3.20: Method of Payment for KOLs’ Travel Expenses

Figure 3.21: Average Flat Rate for Travel Time per Company

Figure 3.22: Method Companies Use to Calculate KOLs’ Travel Time

Figure 3.23: Percentage of Companies that Pay for KOLs’ Out-of-Pocket Expenses While Traveling

Figure 3.24: Percentage of Companies that Pay Premiums for KOLs’ International Travel

KOL Compensation for Clinical Development

Figure 4.1: Average Duration of KOL Activities

Clinical Consulting Versus Commercial Consulting Compensation

Figure 4.2: Average Hourly Rates for Consulting Activities by Provider Type

Figure 4.3: Average Flat Rates for Consulting Activities by Provider Type

Differentiation of Clinical KOL Types

Figure 4.4: Percentage of Physician Category by Tier for Clinical Consulting

Figure 4.5: Premium increase for Top Tier Compensation

Diversifying KOL Relationships Across Academic Institutions

Figure 4.6: Institutions Used Most by Companies for KOL Activities

Figure 4.7: Percentage of Companies Using Experts for Basic Research - Harvard

Figure 4.8: Percentage of Companies Using Experts for Basic Research - California System

Figure 4.9: Percentage of Companies Using Experts for Basic Research - U Penn

Figure 4.10: Percentage of Companies Using Experts for Basic Research - Tufts

Figure 4.11: Percentage of Companies Using Experts for Basic Research - Columbia

Figure 4.12: Percentage of Companies Using Experts for Basic Research - Stanford

Figure 4.13: Percentage of Companies Using Experts for Basic Research - Wash. Seattle

Figure 4.14: Percentage of Companies Using Experts for Basic Research - Dana-Farber

Figure 4.15: Percentage of Companies Using Experts for Basic Research - Wash. St. Louis

Figure 4.16: Percentage of Companies Using Experts for Basic Research - MD Anderson

Figure 4.17: Percentage of Companies Using Experts for Basic Research - Princeton

Figure 4.18: Percentage of Companies Using Experts for Basic Research - Yale

Figure 4.19: Percentage of Companies Using Experts for Basic Research - Duke

Figure 4.20: Percentage of Companies Using Experts for Basic Research - Michigan

Figure 4.21: Percentage of Companies Using Experts for Basic Research - MIT

Figure 4.22: Percentage of Companies Using Experts for Basic Research - Purdue

Figure 4.23: Percentage of Companies Using Experts for Basic Research - Vanderbilt

Analysis of Aggregate FMV Payment Data

Figure 5.1: Method of Payment for KOL Services for All Company Types

Figure 5.2: Top 25 Pharma Companies’ Method of Payment for KOL Services

Figure 5.3: Top 50 Pharma Companies’ Method of Payment for KOL Services

Figure 5.4: top 100 Pharma Companies’ Method of Payment for KOL Services

Figure 5.5: Device and Diagnostic Companies’ Method of Payment for KOL Services

Figure 5.6: Average Duration of KOL Activities

Fair-Market Value Payments for Individual Activities

Figure 5.7: Average Hourly Rates by KOL Type

Figure 5.8: Average Base Hourly Rates by Company Size

Figure 5.9: Average Hourly Rates for Clinical Consulting by KOL Type

Figure 5.10: Average Hourly Rates for Clinical Consulting by Company Size

Figure 5.11: Average Hourly Rates for Commercial Consulting by KOL Type

Figure 5.12: Average Hourly Rates for Commercial Consulting by Company Size

Figure 5.13: Average Hourly Rates for Promotional Speeches by KOL Type

Figure 5.14: Average Hourly Rates for Promotional Speeches by Company Size

Figure 5.15: Average Hourly Rates for Educational Speeches by KOL Type

Figure 5.16: Average Hourly Rates for Educational Speeches by Company Size

Figure 5.17: Average Hourly Rates for Leading an Advisory Panel by KOL Type

Figure 5.18: Average Hourly Rates for Leading an Advisory Board by Company Size

Figure 5.19: Average Hourly Rates for Participating in an Advisory Panel by KOL Type

Figure 5.20: Average Hourly Rates for Participating in an Advisory Board by Company Size

Figure 5.21: Average Base Flat Fees by KOL Type

Figure 5.22: Average Base Flat Fees by Company Size

Figure 5.23: Average Flat Fees for Clinical Consulting by KOL Type

Figure 5.24: Average Flat Fees for Clinical Consulting by Company Size

Figure 5.25: Average Flat Fees for Commercial Consulting by KOL Type

Figure 5.26: Average Flat Fees for Commercial Consulting by Company Size

Figure 5.27: Average Flat Fees for Promotional Speeches by KOL Type

Figure 5.28: Average Flat Fees for Promotional Speeches by Company Size

Figure 5.29: Average Flat Fees for Educational Speeches by KOL Type

Figure 5.30: Average Flat Fees for Educational Speeches by Company Size

Figure 5.31: Average Flat Fees for Leading an Advisory Board by KOL Type

Figure 5.32: Average Flat Fees for Leading an Advisory Board by Company Size

Figure 5.33: Average Flat Fees for Participating in an Advisory Board by KOL Type

Figure 5.34: Average Flat Fees for Participating in an Advisory Board by Company Size

Fair-Market Value Payments by Company Size

Figure 5.35: Top 25 Companies’ Hourly Rates by KOL Type

Figure 5.36: Top 50 Companies’ Hourly Rates by KOL Type

Figure 5.37: Top 100 Companies’ Hourly Rates by KOL Type

Figure 5.38: Medical Device and Diagnostic Companies’ Hourly Rates by KOL Type

Figure 5.39: Third-Party Companies’ and Consultants’ Hourly Rates by KOL Type

Figure 5.40: Top 25 Companies’ Base Flat Fees by KOL Type

Figure 5.41: Top 50 Companies’ Base Flat Fees by KOL Type

Figure 5.42: Top 100 Companies’ Base Flat Fees by KOL Type

Figure 5.43: Medical Device and Diagnostic Companies’ Base Flat Fees by KOL Type

Figure 5.44: Third-Party Companies’ and Consultants’ Base Flat Fees by KOL Type

Aggregate Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for All KOLs

Table A.1: Hourly Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for All Specialties by KOL Type

Table A.1: Hourly Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for All Specialties by KOL Type (Continued)

Table A.2: Flat Fee Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for All Specialties by KOL Type

Table A.2: Flat Fee Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for All Specialties by KOL Type (Continued)

Table A.3: Hourly Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for All Specialties by Company Size

Table A.3: Hourly Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for All Specialties by Company Size (Continued)

Table A.4: Flat Fee Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for All Specialties by Company Size

Table A.4: Flat Fee Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for All Specialties by Company Size (Continued)

Table A.5: Hourly Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for All KOL Types by Company Size

Table A.5: Hourly Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for All KOL Types by Company Size (Continued)

Table A.6: Flat Fee Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for All KOL Types by Company Size

Table A.6: Flat Fee Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for All KOL Types by Company Size (Continued)

Aggregate Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Select Specialists

Table B.1: Hourly Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Cardiologists by Company Size

Table B.1: Hourly Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Cardiologists by Company Size (Continued)

Table B.2: Flat Fee Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Cardiologists by Company Size

Table B.2: Flat Fee Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Cardiologists by Company Size (Continued)

Table B.3: Hourly Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Cardiologists by KOL Tier

Table B.3: Hourly Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Cardiologists by KOL Tier (Continued)

Table B.4: Flat Fee Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Cardiologists by KOL Tier

Table B.4: Flat Fee Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Cardiologists by KOL Tier (Continued)

Table B.5: Hourly Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Endocrinologists by Company Size

Table B.5: Hourly Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Endocrinologists by Company Size (Continued)

Table B.6: Flat Fee Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Endocrinologists by Company Size

Table B.6: Flat Fee Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Endocrinologists by Company Size (Continued)

Table B.7: Hourly Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Endocrinologists by KOL Tier

Table B.7: Hourly Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Endocrinologists by KOL Tier (Continued)

Table B.8: Flat Fee Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Endocrinologists by KOL Tier

Table B.8: Flat Fee Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Endocrinologists by KOL Tier (Continued)

Table B.9: Hourly Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Hematologists by Company Size

Table B.9: Hourly Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Hematologists by Company Size (Continued)

Table B.10: Hourly Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Hematologists by Company Size

Table B.10: Flat Fee Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Hematologists by Company Size (Continued)

Table B.11: Hourly Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Hematologists by KOL Tier

Table B.11: Hourly Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Hematologists by KOL Tier (Continued)

Table B.12: Flat Fee Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Hematologists by KOL Tier

Table B.12: Flat Fee Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Hematologists by KOL Tier (Continued)

Table B.13: Hourly Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Neurologists by Company Size

Table B.13: Hourly Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Neurologists by Company Size (Continued)

Table B.14: Flat Fee Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Neurologists by Company Size

Table B.14: Flat Fee Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Neurologists by Company Size (Continued)

Table B.15: Hourly Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Neurologists by KOL Tier

Table B.15: Hourly Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Neurologists by KOL Tier (Continued)

Table B.15: Hourly Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Neurologists by KOL Tier

Table B.16: Flat Fee Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Neurologists by KOL Tier (Continued)

Table B.17: Hourly Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Oncologists by Company Size

Table B.17: Hourly Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Oncologists by Company Size (Continued)

Table B.18: Flat Fee Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Oncologists by Company Size

Table B.18: Flat Fee Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Oncologists by Company Size (Continued)

Table B.19: Hourly Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Oncologists by KOL Tier

Table B.19: Hourly Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Oncologists by KOL Tier (Continued)

Table B.20: Flat Fee Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Oncologists by KOL Tier

Table B.20: Flat Fee Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Oncologists by KOL Tier (Continued)

Table B.21: Houly Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Surgeons by Company Size

Table B.21: Houly Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Surgeons by Company Size (Continued)

Table B.22: Flat Fee Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Surgeons by Company Size

Table B.22: Flat Fee Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Surgeons by Company Size (Continued)

Table B.23: Hourly Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Surgeons by KOL Tier

Table B.23: Hourly Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Surgeons by KOL Tier (Continued)

Table B.24: Flat Fee Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Surgeons by KOL Tier

Table B.24: Flat Fee Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Surgeons by KOL Tier (Continued)

Aggregate FMV Benchmarks for Primary Care Physicians, Mid-Level Providers and Allied Health Professionals

Table C.1: Hourly Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Primary Care Physicians

Table C.1: Hourly Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Primary Care Physicians (Continued)

Table C.2: Flat Fee Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Primary Care Physicians

Table C.2: Flat Fee Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Primary Care Physicians (Continued)

Table C.3: Hourly Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Mid-Level Providers

Table C.3: Hourly Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Mid-Level Providers (Continued)

Table C.4: Flat Fee Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Mid-Level Providers

Table C.4: Flat Fee Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Mid-Level Providers (Continued)

Table C.5: Hourly Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Allied Health Providers

Table C.5: Hourly Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Allied Health Providers (Continued)

Table C.6: Flat Fee Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Allied Health Providers

Table C.6: Flat Fee Fair-Market Value Benchmarks for Allied Health Providers (Continued)

More United States Regulation & Policy Reports

Orphan Drug Report 2012 by DrugPatentWatch
Profiles the individuals, US states, and countries leading pharmaceutical ...

Freedonia Focus on Ethical Pharmaceuticals: United States by Freedonia Focus
This report discusses US ethical pharmaceuticals for the years 2005 and 2010, with forecasts for 2015. Topics covered include pharmaceutical market size, regulatory and ...

Generics: Regulatory Update by Datamonitor
Cost-containment strategies continue to impact generics. Also controversy remains over the use of pay-for-delay deals in US, while user fees and new bioequivalence guidelines will ...

R&D Trends: Neuropathic Pain - Extensive and diverse pipeline driven by high unmet need by Datamonitor
Introduction Two key events occurred in the first half of 2011: Gralise (extended-release gabapentin; Depomed) obtained US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for the treatment ...

U.S. Contract Research Outsourcing Market: Trends, Challenges and Competition in the New Decade by Frost & Sullivan
This research service provides a detailed overview and analysis of U.S. Contract Research Outsourcing Market. The research service includes a detailed analysis of market trends, ...

See all reports like this >>

More United States Reports

e-Discovery Software Publishing in the US - Industry Market Research Report by IBISWorld
e-Discovery Software Publishing in the US Finding growth : Electronic discovery (more often known as e-discovery) refers to a data search, location and securing process for use ...

D&B Country RiskLine Report: The United States of America by Dun & Bradstreet Inc.
This D&B Country RiskLine Report will help you analyze the risks, opportunities and likely payment delays when doing business in this country. It includes ...

D&B Country Report: The United States of America by Dun & Bradstreet Inc.
D&B Country Report. Comprehensive information for evaluating risks and opportunities when trading or investing in this country. Providing critical information and analysis on ...

Country Report United States January 2011 by Economist Intelligence Unit
Country Reports analyse political and economic trends in featured countries. They show you exactly how national, regional and global events will affect your business in ...

Coal - US - a snapshot (2010) by Mintel - Snapshots
Coal in US by Mintel Global Market Navigator provides you with annual year-end market size data, most recently updated in 2010. This market covers consumption ...

See all reports like this >>

KOL Fair-Market Value and Aggregate Spend

Share this report

Other tasks

Research Assistance

Related Markets

Regulation & Policy Reports

Free Alert Me service