Key takeaways:

• Integrate fragmented data sources to separate signal from noise and identify the care gaps that matter
• Prioritize gaps that are clinically meaningful, actionable and tied to medical affairs’ ability to create value
• Track leading indicators and long-term outcomes to understand whether interventions are changing practice

ZS and Nita Thingalaya at Novartis discuss how care gap intelligence from medical affairs analytics can help teams prioritize action and measure change.

Care gap measurement becomes especially challenging when clinical practice evolves faster than teams can align fragmented data sources and consistent tracking approaches. Medical affairs teams need an analytics foundation that can help them determine where care falls short and whether interventions are changing practice over time.

In a recent conversation, John Gonzales, associate principal at ZS, spoke with Nita Thingalaya, executive director of medical insights and analytics at Novartis, about the challenges care gaps present for medical affairs teams and the role intelligence can play in separating signal from noise, prioritizing what is clinically meaningful and turning shared insights into coordinated action.

John Gonzales (JG): Nita, your team brings together information from scientific literature, field medical interactions, real-world evidence and other sources through AI-enabled analytics. With medical affairs teams working with more data than ever, what has changed in recent years and why has identifying care gaps become such a strategic priority?

Nita Thingalaya (NT): The healthcare ecosystem has become much more data-focused, with a wider range of sources available across areas such as congress activity, patient analytics and digital engagement. That volume makes it harder to separate noise from true signal. Teams cannot work with siloed data if they want the full story. They need to weave data sources together through analytics so they can understand the full story behind unmet needs or care gaps and focus on what can improve patient care.

That alignment matters because the language can differ across organizations. Terms such as unmet needs, medical care gaps and clinical care gaps may vary, but the constant is the goal: improving patient care. Using data to augment prioritization is essential, regardless of how many data sources a team has.

JG: Yes, more data can help medical affairs teams see a fuller picture, but it also raises the risk of acting on fragmented insights or one-time snapshots. Every care gap does not warrant the same level of attention. How have you approached prioritizing which gaps to focus on, and what criteria should teams consider?

NT: Teams should start with whether the gap matters clinically. A gap should represent a meaningful opportunity to improve patient outcomes, quality of care or adherence to guideline-directed therapy. Teams should also ask whether the gap is actionable by their function, whether scientific exchange, evidence generation or stakeholder engagement can influence it and where medical affairs can create the greatest medical value.

Because resources are limited, prioritization should also consider the drug life cycle, the function involved and the need for a longer-term objective. Care gap work is not a one-time analysis. It must be monitored over time.

JG: Can you share an example where identifying the right care gap led to meaningful change?

NT: Early diagnosis is one area where care-gap work can create value for patients. Enabling testing can help unlock earlier diagnosis, which can make treatment available faster. This type of work can help reduce comorbidities and the broader burden on healthcare expenses and outcomes.

Moving care toward guideline-directed therapy or guideline-directed management is another opportunity where medical affairs can provide value because the function sits at the connection point between science and real-world clinical practice.

JG: Care gaps can create a shared basis for medical decision-making, but that only matters if teams can turn the evidence into action.

A defined care gap creates value once different teams and functions are acting on it together. Where does the shift from shared insight to coordinated action occur?

NT: Identifying a care gap may be the easiest part. The harder work is engaging committed partners who believe in the care gap as both a strategy and a way to improve patient outcomes. Care gap work cannot happen in silos. Medical insights and analytics, U.S. medical affairs, field teams and other partners must work together in cohesion.

The goal is not only to collect insights but to connect them and move them into a loop of action. AI can help bring different perspectives together, but teams still need a shared definition of success, a common scorecard and long-term monitoring. Care gaps are an organizational opportunity that can unify evidence generation, scientific engagement, site of care insights and education strategies.

JG: In a complex care pathway with multiple decision points, how do you figure out which decision point matters most to focus on first?

NT: Prioritization should come back to the same core lens: Is the care gap meaningful, can it be measured and can the organization create meaningful medical value? The answer can differ by therapeutic area and by the function involved. A cohesive strategy across the team helps determine where focus can create the greatest effect.

JG: Once teams define the gap and decide where to focus, the next challenge is building the measurement loop: tracking progress, reviewing leading indicators and understanding whether practice is changing over time.

How long does it typically take to go from identifying a decision point to seeing a measurable shift in practice?

NT: Timing depends on the gap, the interventions and the analysis used to measure the shift. Some changes may be visible within six months, but often it can take a year or longer. Teams should not wait only for the long-term outcome. They should track activities, efforts and leading indicators that show whether they are moving in the right direction.

Leading indicators are important because medical affairs activities often do not change practice immediately. Behavior change takes time. Execution metrics and scores such as sentiment analysis may help predict gap reduction over time, especially when coupled with longer-term measurement.

JG: Defining the gap is only the start. Teams also need to understand the context around it, agree on how progress will be measured and keep reviewing whether their efforts are moving care in the right direction.

Once you act on a care gap, how do you know whether it worked?

NT: Success depends on how the gap was defined and what the team is trying to address. Teams need to align on the success criteria for the strategy and measure progress along the way. Leading signals and leading indicators can help teams understand whether they are moving in the right direction and making progress against unmet needs.

JG: Thanks, Nita, for sharing your perspective. That’s great framing for how teams can approach care gaps.

NT: Thanks for having me.

Listen to the full conversation.