Biotech and pharma teams run trial-recruitment ads and HCP portals, then watch conversion rates no consumer brand would tolerate. The problem isn't creative – it's a funnel nobody's tested because MLR review makes testing feel impossible. We fix the funnel and build a testing calendar that works inside your review board's actual calendar.
The Problem
Screening-to-consent drop-off nobody owns
Patients click a trial-awareness ad, start a screener, and vanish before the last question. Nobody can say which question loses them, because the screener was built by a CRO vendor and marketing never got the data. Every abandoned screener is a patient who might have qualified and a recruitment timeline slipping another quarter.
The 'find a specialist' tool nobody's touched since launch
Your HCP portal locator was built once and never revisited. Physicians hit a slow page or a results list that returns nothing nearby, and close the tab. It's often your highest-intent physician touchpoint, running on default settings from a web agency that shipped it years ago.
Patient support program enrollment stalls at the paperwork
A patient says yes to your support program, then gets a PDF form or a phone queue. That intent doesn't survive the handoff. Every extra step between 'yes' and 'enrolled' costs patients who needed the program and will now go without it.
Every test idea dies waiting on MLR
Legal and medical review takes four to six weeks per claim variant, so by the time a test clears, the campaign it was built for has ended. Teams stop proposing tests and default to whatever copy cleared review first, regardless of whether it converts.
How We Help
We start with a two-week audit: screener analytics, HCP portal recordings, PSP enrollment flow, and your MLR calendar. We map every friction point to a specific screen, and every planned test against the review board's submission windows.
From there we build a test roadmap that works inside your review cycle. Instead of proposing one test and waiting six weeks for an answer, we batch three to five claim variants into a single MLR submission, so one review cycle produces a quarter's worth of testable assets.
Execution starts with what doesn't touch a medical claim – screener flow, form fields, page speed, locator search logic – because those changes don't need MLR sign-off and can ship in week one. We rebuild the screener around your actual enrollment criteria and add save-and-resume.
For claim-dependent elements, we run controlled sequential rollout using the pre-cleared library: each approved variant runs a fixed window, we measure lift against baseline, and retire underperformers without needing a new review cycle, because every variant in rotation is already approved.
On the patient support program side, we cut the distance between 'yes' and 'enrolled' – usually replacing a PDF-and-phone-queue handoff with a short digital form pre-filled from what the patient already told you, coordinated directly with your PSP vendor or case management team.
Every change ships with instrumentation first. We tag screener steps, locator interactions, and enrollment fields individually, so six weeks in you have a dashboard showing exactly where drop-off remains – not a vague conversion number, but step-by-step data your team can act on.
What we deliver
- Funnel audit and MLR-calendar map – every drop-off point tied to a specific screen, plus a schedule showing when each fix can legally ship.
- Pre-cleared claim variant library – three to five tested headline and copy options approved in one MLR review, ready for sequential rollout.
- Rebuilt screener, locator, and enrollment flows – redesigned for completion, not just launch.
- Step-level funnel dashboard – instrumented tracking on every screener question, locator search, and enrollment field.
In biotech, the bottleneck on conversion isn't your funnel – it's how many approved claim variants you have sitting in a library when the review board says yes.
Our Methodology
We run this as a 90-day sprint – roughly one MLR cycle plus enough runway to test what comes out of it. Days 1-30: instrument the funnel, identify the highest-friction steps, and get a batch of claim variants into your review board's queue immediately.
Days 30-60: execute everything that doesn't need claim review – screener redesign, locator fixes, PSP enrollment flow – while variants move through legal and medical. By the time approval returns, the parts of the funnel we control outright are already live.
Days 60-90: sequential rollout of approved variants against that baseline, plus a handoff – a testing calendar synced to your next two review windows, so the pipeline doesn't run dry the day we step back.
How We Work
Days 1-30 are diagnostic: we pull analytics access, sit in on your MLR submission process, and talk to whoever owns the screener, portal, and PSP flow. One marketing and one regulatory contact is enough. We deliver the audit and first claim-variant batch by day 30.
Days 30-60 run in parallel: we build and ship non-claim fixes while your review board works the submitted batch. Weekly 30-minute check-ins track both tracks – what shipped, what's stuck, what the data shows. We work inside your existing CMS and portal tools.
Days 60-90: approved variants go live on the sequential testing schedule, results log against baseline, and we build next quarter's testing calendar with your team. Engagement typically runs $15,000 to $40,000 per month depending on scope and MLR complexity.
After 90 days, most clients move to a lighter monthly retainer to manage the ongoing claim-variant pipeline, since MLR review doesn't stop just because the sprint did.
- A funnel that improves on a standing library of pre-cleared variants, not a one-time test.
- Visibility into exactly where patients and physicians drop off, at the question and field level.
- A shorter distance between patient intent and program enrollment.
If your biotech & pharma company needs conversion rate optimization leadership, we should talk.
Expand your marketing team output with our experts
Let us take a custom approach to your growth goals by assembling and leading the best-in-class marketing team to support your next stage.
Frequently asked questions
How much does conversion rate optimization for a biotech or pharma funnel cost?
Most engagements run $15,000 to $40,000 per month, depending on how many touchpoints are in scope and how many review cycles your MLR process requires. A single-funnel engagement sits at the lower end; multi-portal work with an active PSP integration sits higher.
How long until we see a measurable change in conversion?
Non-claim fixes – screener flow, form fields, locator UX – typically show movement within 30 to 45 days, since they don't need MLR sign-off. Claim-dependent changes depend on your review board's cycle time; expect results in the second half of the 90-day sprint.
Do we need to give you a dedicated internal team?
No. We need one marketing contact and one regulatory affairs contact who can get us into the MLR process and answer claim-boundary questions. We do the audit, build, and instrumentation ourselves inside your existing tools. Your time cost is a weekly 30-minute check-in.
How is this different from a standard growth or CRO agency?
Standard CRO agencies run rapid tests with real-time stopping rules – ship, watch, kill within days. That breaks the moment a claim needs sign-off. We batch claim variants into single MLR submissions instead, so you get testing velocity without breaking your review process.
How do you measure ROI on this kind of engagement?
We track step-level completion on the screener, locator, and enrollment flow before and after each change, not one blended conversion number. For claim-dependent variants we compare each approved option against the baseline it replaced. You keep the dashboard after the engagement ends.
What kind of company is the right fit for this?
Series A through growth-stage biotech and pharma companies with an active patient-facing funnel – trial recruitment, an HCP portal, or a patient support program – and an MLR-equivalent review process already in place. If your bottleneck is 'we don't know why patients aren't enrolling,' start with a funnel audit instead.
