The industry tracks reach, frequency, and engagement. But none of those metrics tell you whether you actually changed a clinical decision.
Stop Counting Interactions. Start Measuring Impact.
One Idea Worth Acting On.
An MSL logs their fifteenth KOL meeting of the week.
The CRM dashboard turns green.
Leadership celebrates a hit metric.
The actual feedback from the visit: "The physician likes the study."
That is not a strategic insight. That is a comment. And under most current systems, it is counted, celebrated, and reported upward as evidence of impact.
Field Medical exists to do one thing: generate strategic intelligence from the external healthcare ecosystem and route it to the internal functions that need it. MSLs are uniquely positioned to hear what practicing oncologists are thinking about current treatments, emerging data, unmet patient needs, and competitive positioning — intelligence that cannot be found in any database.
But when the measure of success is the number of interactions, the system trains MSLs to optimize for volume rather than depth.
As Dr. Robin Winter-Sperry, pharmaceutical industry strategist and contributor to Voices of Oncology, explains: an MSL reporting back that "the physician likes the study" is not a strategic insight. Yet under many current measurement systems, that observation is captured, entered into the CRM, counted toward the weekly target, and reported upward as meaningful field intelligence.
The result is a dangerous illusion of productivity. Activity metrics are green. Strategic value is invisible.
The questions that matter most in oncology drug development — which patient subpopulations are underserved, where the real-world prescribing patterns diverge from the label, what objections physicians are raising that the company has not heard — are answered in MSL field conversations. Not in CRM dashboards.
When MSLs are incentivized to maximize call frequency, they have less time to cultivate the relationships that produce genuine insight. Brief, transactional interactions replace the deeper scientific exchanges that generate the intelligence the organization actually needs.
The insight that would have changed the publication strategy, the safety communication approach, or the label expansion decision never arrived — because the system that was supposed to route it was optimized for something else entirely.
A Medical Affairs function invests in a new CRM platform to improve insight tracking. Six months later, the volume of submitted insights has tripled. Leadership declares success.
But when the submissions are analyzed, the majority are brief, non-actionable observations — physician comments about competitive products, general satisfaction ratings, note-taking from presentations the MSL attended. The insights that would require a change in strategy, a new publication, or a response from Clinical Development are buried or absent entirely.
The platform measured submission volume. It had no way to measure whether the submissions changed any decision.
Field Medical metrics need to measure what they are actually trying to produce: strategic insights that reach the internal functions whose decisions they should inform, and evidence that those decisions changed as a result.
That requires two things: a quality standard for what constitutes a meaningful field insight, and a routing mechanism that ensures qualified insights reach the strategy, publication, and clinical development teams — not just the CRM inbox.
The organizations building that infrastructure are discovering that fewer, better insights from well-cultivated relationships are worth more than thousands of brief interactions that never move a decision.
Activity is not impact. Interactions are not intelligence.
Until Field Medical is measured on what its insights actually change — not how many were submitted — the function will keep producing the metric it is asked for and delivering far less than it is capable of.
Add Your Voice — Where are you seeing this? What's working — and what's not?
Emmanuelle Jacqueta, Ghania Kerouani-Lafayeb, Francoise Grudeb, Sergio Goncalvesb, Annie Lorenced, Florence Turcryb, Liora Brunelb, Laetitia Belgodereb, Adrien Monardc, Gaëlle Guyaderb, Lotfi Boudalib, Nicolas Albin
iNIZIO
iNIZIO
Jayson L. Parker, Sebnem S. Kuzulugil, Kirill Pereverzev, Stephen Mac, Gilberto Lopes, Zain Shah, Ashini Weerasinghe, Daniel Rubinger, Adam Falconi, Ayse Bener, Bora Caglayan, Rohan Tangri, Nicholas Mitsakakis
Avi Cherla, MSc; Huseyin Naci, MHS, PhD; Aaron S. Kesselheim, MD, JD, MPH; Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD; Elias Mossialos, MD, PhD
Michael Pietrack