Your HCP Target List Should Be a Starting Point

This article is part of solli’s October series exploring  HCP and Patient Engagement, written by Andrew Johnson, Head of Commercial and Customer Success, epocrates 

I understand why pharma marketers put so much weight on their target lists.  A lot of work goes into deciding which clinicians to prioritize, and teams need to make every dollar count. But in conversations with brands and agency teams, I see those lists getting narrower year after year. Partners can be ruled out because they don’t match enough of the list, before we’ve even discussed the relevant clinicians they can reach outside it. 

That is a missed opportunity. The prescribing data behind the list may already be out of date when the campaign launches. And a clinician’s absence from the list does not tell us whether they treat the patients who may be appropriate for the therapy.  

Once a list is in the brief, it can become the easiest thing to compare across partners. The match percentages sit next to each other in a spreadsheet, and the higher number looks like the better option. I understand the appeal. But that comparison leaves out a harder question: What relevant opportunity does each partner bring that the list hasn’t captured? 

The list gives us a place to start. Before treating it as the final word, marketers should ask three questions. 

Who else deserves consideration? 

Before ruling out a clinician, ask why they were left off the list and whether that reason still holds. If we carry the same selection criteria from one planning cycle to the next, we may keep excluding people whose practices have changed. A clinician who previously treated few relevant patients may now manage a growing population yet remain outside consideration because the list still reflects an earlier prescribing history. The practical question is whether the criteria reflect the opportunity today. 

Take nurse practitioners and physician associates. Both have National Provider Identifiers (NPIs). If a list focuses only on physicians, it can leave out the many other clinicians who diagnose, choose treatments, prescribe and manage ongoing care. We should be asking what role they play in treating the condition and whether the campaign should include them. 

Even within the same practice, the clinician writing the prescription may be only one of multiple people a campaign should consider. Another may evaluate patients, discuss treatment options or help manage therapy over time. Understanding who does what takes more work than checking a professional title. It also gives marketers a much better reason to include someone. 

I’m not suggesting marketers pay to reach more names without a reason. Ask the partner to make the case: What patients do these clinicians treat? What treatment decisions do they make? Why should this brand reach them? Those answers give a team something more useful to evaluate than the list match alone. 

What would make the interaction useful? 

Once an audience is selected, the next question is what those clinicians need from the interaction. Knowing someone’s specialty or prescribing history does not answer that question. 

Think about a clinician opening a clinical reference tool to check treatment information. They have a question to answer. A brief message that offers a clear route to relevant prescribing information may be useful in that moment, while a detailed explanation of clinical evidence may fit better when they have time to explore it. 

The clinician did not open the tool to see an advertisement. That should shape our expectations. The message has to earn attention without getting in the way of the task. Sometimes the most useful thing a brand can offer is a clear answer to a practical question, with an easy way to learn more. 

That should be part of the media conversation. Alongside asking whether a partner can reach a clinician, ask what the clinician is there to do and how the message fits.

Where engagement data is permitted for advertising use, it can help guide follow-up. A clinician who reads disease education may welcome more information on the subject. That activity alone does not tell us they have an eligible patient or plan to prescribe. 

The practical test is whether what we know changes what we communicate. If every segment receives the same general message, increasingly granular targeting has done little to improve relevance. 

For each audience and placement, teams should be able to explain what the content helps the clinician understand and why the next interaction is worth their attention. 

Does the added investment deliver value? 

Marketers are right to ask whether reaching clinicians outside the target list is worth the investment. Teams should agree before the campaign begins on what would make that investment worthwhile. 

Start by separating delivery from impact. Match rate shows how much of a supplied list a partner can identify within its audience. Reach shows how many clinicians the campaign actually reached. Engagement tells us whether clinicians interacted with the content. None of those measures, on its own, establishes commercial value. 

Before adding an audience, agree on why those clinicians matter and what result would justify the spend. Then look at their results separately from the original list. Otherwise, you won’t know whether the additional audience earned its place in the campaign. 

There is room between rejecting everyone outside the list and funding a broad expansion. Set aside a specific budget, define the additional audience and agree on how to evaluate it. A focused test gives the partner a chance to prove the opportunity and gives the marketer evidence for the next decision. Expansion should earn more investment as the results support it. 

Where prescribing outcomes can be assessed, use a credible comparison. Clinicians already interested in a therapy may have been more likely to prescribe it regardless of advertising. An appropriate control or holdout can help assess the campaign’s contribution. 

Look beyond the match rate

Ask partners three questions: Who do you recommend we add? Why do they matter? How will we evaluate their contribution?

Without those answers, success can become circular: We reached more clinicians because we bought access to more clinicians. With them, marketers have a basis for deciding whether to expand, adjust, or stop the investment. 

I would ask marketers to give partners a chance to make the case for relevant clinicians outside the list and hold them accountable for the results. If the case is weak, don’t fund it. But when the list match ends the conversation, we never find out what we might be missing.  

For more on HCP and Patient Engagement,  click here. 

Andrew Johnson oversees Commercial Ad Sales, Customer Success, Media Partnerships, and Business Development for epocrates, leading initiatives that drive revenue growth and expand market presence. With a focus on digital advertising, strategic partnerships, and customer engagement, he works to optimize value for clients and foster long-term business success. Before joining the organization, Andrew held senior leadership roles in the healthcare technology sector, where he guided business growth, strategic integrations, and performance improvement initiatives across multiple divisions.