Category Archives: Blog

Exigency of Cybersecurity in Digitalized Pharma

Posted on by
Reply

Digitalization – as it unfolds and imbibed by most drug companies, is presumed to herald a whole new ballgame in the Indian pharma business. Equally significant is the quantum benefit that the process will deliver to pharma stakeholders – right from drug companies to patients. It has already hastened the process of new drug discovery and will also help charting newer ways to meaningfully engage with stakeholders, besides enhancing treatment outcomes for patients, appreciably.

However, the flip side is, more benefits a company accrues from digitalization, greater will be the risks of cyber-attacks. Thus, preventive measures should also be equally robust. Otherwise, hackers can bring a company’s digital system to a standstill, causing not just a temporary loss in revenue and profit, but also valuable data leak, with considerable impact on even long-term business.

Strangely, associated risks of digitalization to pharma companies are seldom outlined in any discussion, leave aside alternatives for salvaging such untoward situation, if or as and when it comes. Unless, it is felt that the scope of such discussion doesn’t cover the implementors and falls totally on cybersecurity experts.

Nonetheless, it is intriguing in the pharma space. The reason being, pharma industry believes, while talking about the efficacy of any drug, its vulnerability in terms of side-effects, contraindications or drug interactions, should also be known to its users. That’s the purpose of a packaging leaflet. It’s a different reason though, that most drug companies in India have virtually jettisoned this practice as a cost saving measure, even for drugs that are not under price control. That apart, in this article, I shall explore the relevance of cybersecurity in the digitalized pharma world.

A question that help understand its implication:

During organizational transformation through digitalization in pharma, just like any other business, all crucial documents get transferred from paper to digital formats. The key question that follows in this regard is – what happens to these digital documents post cyber-attacks, if any? Any attempt to answer this question holistically will help people realize its implication – that ‘cybersecurity must be more than an afterthought.’

‘Cybersecurity must be more than an afterthought’:

The article, ‘Cybersecurity in the Age of Digital Transformation,’ published by MIT Technology Review Insights on January 23, 2017, stressed upon this critical point. It highlighted: “As companies embrace technologies such as the Internet of Things, big data, cloud, and mobility, security must be more than an afterthought. But in the digital era, the focus needs to shift from securing network perimeters to safeguarding data spread across systems, devices, and the cloud.”

Thus, while discussing the need to digitally transform a company’s business, cybersecurity must be part of that conversation from the very start – the paper underscored in no uncertain terms. That’s exactly what we are deliberating today - ‘as companies embark on their journeys of digital transformation, they must make cybersecurity a top priority.’

The cybersecurity threat may cripple innovation and slow business:

Cisco explored the concept of Cybersecurity as a Growth Advantage by a thought leadership global study. While assessing the impact of cybersecurity on digitalization, it surveyed more than 1,000 senior finance and line-of-business executives across 10 countries. Some of the key findings, as captured in the Cisco report, may be summarized, as follows:

  • 71 percent of executives said that concerns over cybersecurity are impeding innovation in their organizations.
  • 39 percent stated that they had halted mission-critical initiatives due to cybersecurity issues.

Interestingly, 73 percent of survey respondents admitted that they often embrace new technologies and business processes, despite cybersecurity risk. However, as we shall see below, pharma executives are quite confident of cybersecurity, probably because of inadequate experience in this area, as on date.

Companies are struggling with their capabilities in cyber-risk management:

The paper published in the May 2014 issue of the McKinsey Quarterly journal, titled “The rising strategic risks of cyberattacks”, also flagged this issue. It said: “More and more business value and personal information worldwide are rapidly migrating into digital form on open and globally interconnected technology platforms. As that happens, the risks from cyberattacks become increasingly daunting. Criminals pursue financial gain through fraud and identity theft; competitors steal intellectual property or disrupt business to grab advantage; ‘hacktivists’ pierce online firewalls to make political statements.”

McKinsey’s research study on the subject, conducted in partnership with the World Economic Forum also upheld that companies are struggling with their capabilities in cyber-risk management. As highly visible breaches occur with growing regularity, most technology executives believe that they are losing ground to attackers. Its ongoing cyber-risk-maturity survey research also ferreted out the following important points:

  • Large companies reported cross-sector gaps in their risk-management capabilities.
  • 90 percent had “nascent” or “developing” ones.
  • 5 percent was rated “mature” overall across the practice areas studied.

Interestingly, the research found no correlation between spending levels and risk-management maturity. Some companies spend less, but do a comparatively good job of making risk-management decisions. Others spend vigorously, but without much sophistication. Even the largest firms had substantial room for improvement – McKinsey reiterated.

‘Corporate espionage’– a prime reason behind cyberattack on pharma:

An interesting article appeared in The Pharma Letter on July 18, 2017 on this subject. The paper is titled “Cyber-attacks: How prepared is pharma?” It said:“The pharmaceutical industry is a prime target for hackers. In 2015, a survey of Crown Records Management revealed that nearly, two-thirds of pharma firms had experienced breaches in data, and that one fourth of these same companies had been victims of hacking.”The paper also highlighted ‘corporate espionage’ as one of the prime reasons behind hacking.

In view of this, the author articulated that the need for pharma and healthcare companies to fortify their security systems has become clear in recent years. The best method of protection is to prevent cyber-attacks from happening, or at least reduce the risk of a hack, he advised.

Instances of cyber-attacks in pharma are many:

To drive home the point that when firms and other organizations fail to strengthen IT systems against attacks, they incur high costs -the above paper cited an example from the year 2016. It said: “The average global cost of data breach per stolen record was US$ 355 for healthcare groups, higher than losses in other fields such as education (US$ 246/record), transportation (US$ 129), and research (US$ 112).”

The author further emphasized that besides financial losses, pharma companies and other healthcare groups risk losing the trust of patients and other stakeholders. With the ongoing digitization in pharma, new threats may become even more pervasive and sophisticated. “Thus, investment in cybersecurity must be a priority, if pharma players are to protect their data and the data of their stakeholders”, he added.

Are pharma executives experienced enough on cybersecurity?

As reported by Pharma IQ on July 31, 2018, one of its recent surveys found that around 70 percent of senior pharma decision makers are “confident” or even “very confident” in their company’s IT security. But, digging deeper, the survey uncovered that:

  • 42 percent of respondents’ companies do not routinely follow IT security policies,
  • 49 percent said that the corporate risk profile is not firmly understood across all departments.

The survey concluded that this could potentially lead to gaps in the security process. To me it appears, this could, as well, be due to inadequate experience of pharma executives in this area.

But, investment in pharma IT is increasing:

The good news is, even in the current scenario, many pharmaceutical companieshave started making investments in IT solutions, in general. This is corroborated by the 2018 survey by Global Data. Some of its important findings are, as follows:

  • 79 percent of them are currently making investments in identity and access management (IAM) solutions
  • 72 percent are considering investment in the solutions over the next two years.
  • 75 percent of the respondents are currently deploying some form of backup, archiving, alongside content and web filtering solutions to store, as well as, preserve their online information. 

Conclusion:

In pharma perspective, digitalization of business promotes paperless culture. It radically changes the basic infrastructure of maintaining critical documents in the workplace. Digital document storage systems become the nerve center of information on the company. All data – strategic or related to operations – internally generated or acquired – right across all critical functional areas, such as IP, research, clinical trials, manufacturing, sales and marketing, finance, supply chain legal and even of the CEO’s office, find a space in this digital data sever.

Although, the benefits of digitalization are well known and much discussed, it has a contraposition, as well – related to the vulnerability of the system to cyber-attacks. This flags a demanding need for protection of digitally stored assets from cyber-attacks, or to frustrate even any misdemeanorfrom amateur hackers. Thus, creating an almost impregnable, well-firewalled digital data storage server assumes prime importance. Equally important is formulating and religiously implementing a robust digital policy for the same.

Creating strong awareness among employees and stakeholders regarding cybersecurity and involving them in tandem with a system-approach, sans an iota of complacency, is expected to mitigate such vulnerability, appreciably. Thus, a sense ofexigency for cybersecurity in the digitalized pharma world, I reckon, is very real.

By: Tapan J. Ray   

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

Data: The New ‘Magic Wand’ For Pharma Business Excellence?

Posted on by
Reply

Pharma companies focus more on defending their current practices, rather than doing things differently. A September 24, 2014 article by Bain & Company, titled ‘New Paths to Value Creation in Pharma’, made this observation.

This happens regardless of the credence that leaders who change too early, risk losing attractive cash flows from established business models, and those that move too late risk being disrupted by emerging competitors. However, analyzing the recent history, the authors observed that pharma leaders have more often erred on the side of holding on to old models for too long, leaving room for more aggressive players to disrupt them.

Analysis of the 10 companies in the above study also found: “With their sustained success, these companies refute the widely held assumption that serendipitous innovation is the key to success in pharma.” However, on the ground all 10 of these large global drug companies have prospered despite industry-wide trends such as declining R&D productivity and the demise of the primary care blockbuster model. The authors explained: “This is because they operate in a high-margin environment.”

Starting with this scenario, I shall submit in this article, why the importance of well targeted data-based decision-making process, across the pharma functional areas, is now more than ever before.

Rewriting notes in the business playbook, taking cue from new data:

Having charted in the high margin ambience, Big Pharma exhibit reluctance in recomposing notes in the business playbook, based on a new set of real-life data. This is essential for sustainable success in a fast-changing business, political and social environment. They keep maintaining a strong belief in what they have been believing, regardless of what a large volume of credible data overwhelmingly indicates. Ongoing near unanimity in their collective decision to further intensify expensive advocacy initiatives in the same direction, continues. Other pharma players follow the same course.

This vicious circle continues sans any positive outcome, neither for pharma, nor for the patients. Already dented reputation of the industry gets more dented. In my various articles in this blog, I deliberated on various areas that merit radical overhaul in the pharma business, including patient-centricity and transforming the business through digitalization.

Use of data and analytics leaves room for a huge improvement in pharma: 

Let me express upfront, I am not trying to say, in any way, that pharma companies, in general, are not making investments for customized data generation or in analytics for use in new drug discovery and development, aiming improved process productivity. But, in many other functional areas, such as drug marketing, stakeholder engagement or even in strategic corporate communication for greater effectiveness, usage of scalable data and modern analytics leave much room for improvement.

Quality of data-use – ‘the proof of the pudding is in the eating’: 

As the saying goes, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, let me give a couple of examples on the quality of data-use and their outcomes in the areas under discussion.

Sizeable data clearly establishes the wish of most stakeholders, including patients for transparency in drug pricing, alongside improved access to affordable medicines. However, Big Pharma and their associates trying to swim against the tide keep advocating how the expensive process of drug innovation merits high drug prices. Understandably, negative public perception towards the industry further intensifies. Assuming that data analytics are extensively put to use while developing such communication, can anyone possibly cite such efforts as examples of productive use data?

Similarly, if any pharma company, for example, Sanofi besides many others, claims that it aims at ‘promoting and sustaining ethics and integrity in all our activities’ and has developed a comprehensive body of policies and standards, to provide guidance on a range of challenges specific to pharma industry like anti-bribery. However, in practice, we hear and read, even very recently that ‘Sanofi to pay more than $25 million to resolve corruption charges’ and which is not a solitary instance, either. The question, therefore, surfaces, how can data play any role in the fight against corruption by uncovering, preventing and deterring corruption.

‘How data is changing the fight against corruption:’

There are many published research papers, which established that effective use of data can prevent such corruption, and surely in cases of alleged repeat or multiple offenders in the pharma industry. One such paper titled, ‘How data is changing the fight against corruption,’ published in the OECD Forum Network on February 13, 2018, also reconfirms this point. It says:Data – both big and open – is indeed changing the anti-corruption landscape, by uncovering, preventing and deterring corruption.

Is pharma leveraging the data power for holistic business success?

I am not sure, but available evidences suggest most of them are not – at least, aiming for holistic business success. This is because, in the pharma industry, including Big Pharma, as I wrotein the past, alleged corrupt practices are widespread and continue unabated. This is quite evident from the national and international business magazines and media reports, coming rather frequently. The Transparency International Report titled “Corruption in the pharmaceutical sector – Transparency International 2016”, discusses the raging issue across the various functions of many drug companies.

Besides pharma and biotech R&D, there are many other critical areas, where leveraging data power with expert application of analytics, pharma players can reap rich harvest in terms of sustainable long-term business growth. However, for that there are some prerequisites, like – an open mind, unbiased approach, a mindset to accept reality as they are, and then neutralize the unfavorable ones with cerebral power. Trying to rationalize what is not working makes the situation worse, more complex, creating stronger headwinds.

Many sources of data capturing, still limited usage:

There are many sources of abundant data availability of various kinds, for pharma players. However, targeted data gathering of scale and appropriate analysis of the same, still remain rather limited in pharma. For example, while marketing their brands, numerous drug players in India don’t venture going beyond limited sources for data capturing for broad analysis. Such data may usually include, syndicated retail and prescription audits, besides internal sales and marketing details together with associated expenses or productivity related statistics. Data mining for dip-stick analysis is done seldom, according to industry sources.

Additionally, there are copious others who operate predominantly on ‘gut feeling’ and hearsay, sans any customer related meaningful and real-time data. When we create hype on patient-centricity, and alongside witness the general outcomes of such approaches, it requires no rocket science to fathom how much intelligent data input has gone behind such strategies.

The present system itself generates an enormous amount of real-time data in various areas, though most are not effectively utilized for weighty payoff, especially in pharma. The ongoing process of data generation also includes, drug innovation initiatives, manufacturing, supply-chain, distributor–wholesaler-retailer activities, digital apps and different websites, besides scores of other sources. But, the information, as stated above, apparently, is hardly analyzed through analytics to obtain targeted strategic inputs. Leave aside, intelligent application of the same to scale newer heights of all-round business success.

Data generation for swimming against the tide of public perception:  

Although, it’s not yielding positive results, I understand, pharma keeps spending a lot, both at the company level or through their trade bodies, to rationalize what they want the stakeholders to believe. For example,’ drug price control limits access to drugs’. Various reports to this effect are made public and used for the aggressive advocacy campaigns, though hardly taken seriously by those who matter.

Any price control, I reckon, may not be supported in ordinary circumstances. However, drug price control has definitely helped India to improve access to drugs without impeding any reasonable growth of the industry. That 5 or 10-year CAGR of the drug industry comes in double digit, despite continuation of drug price control regime for the last 48 years, offers a testimony to this fact. It’s a different issue, though, that Indian public health care system remains in shamble, even in the present regime. The lackadaisical attitude of all governments on public health related areas, is held responsible for this failure.

Conclusion:

The bottom-line is, expensive data generation effort, when gets primarily driven by self-serving motives, becomes increasingly counterproductive, as cited above. More informed stakeholders of date, including patients, probably other than the stock markets, want to see pharma players more in sync with the ground realities, and are acting accordingly. Thus, for sustainable business success, saner senses should prevail to generate adequate amounts of credible and targeted data, analyze them properly through analytics and use these with cerebral power to create a win-win situation in the pharma business.

In my view, any comprehensive ‘Decision Support System’ of an organization should go beyond the generation of mammoth internal business-related data. It should be integrated with the same kind of targeted external data of scale, with the use of modern analytics. This needs to happen – both at the macro level – as an organization, and also at the micro level – with its various functions. The corporate illusion of always ‘operating in a high-margin environment’ in pharma, will not guarantee sustainable business success, any longer.

From this perspective, using well-integrated internal and external data as the bedrock of all strategic decisions in pharma, I reckon, would soon prove to be a ‘magic wand,’ as it were, for pharma business excellence.

By: Tapan J. Ray    

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

 

‘Design Thinking’: Translating Struggles into Positive Outcomes in Pharma

Posted on by
Reply

Problems of various nature will keep coming on business, as long as long as one remains in the business. It doesn’t spare anyone in the organization – from the very top to right up to the very bottom. All is susceptible to problems. Thus, underlying part of all jobs, is one’s ability to solve problems – decisively, as these keep coming.

At the corporate level, problems could be either self-created. For example, when each functional area operates in a silo, at times restricting overall corporate business growth. This may happen not only due to lack of operational synergy, but also for setting incompatible goals. Problems may even arise out of environmental hindrances, or for smarter competitive strategies. Both would adversely impact the company performance, including the possibility of damage to reputation, and at times, even survival of the business. At the individual level, problems at the work place, may affect one’s personal life, work life, career path, key performance areas or even income, among many others.

Looking at the positive aspect of it, as the saying goes, each problem comes as a hidden opportunity, which needs to be harvested. Importantly, in a work environment, the degree of career success of an individual is often associated with the person’s problem-solving ability – in innovative ways. Conversely, one pays a commensurate price for not being able to do so.

In any case, ‘problem solving’ skill is important for all, as much as it is in any business, irrespective of whether the environment around is digital or one involving with lesser of computer technology. This skill is highly necessary for business success. Therefore, the essence of garnering differential competitive edges in any business remains deeply embedded in the quality of problem-solving ability of its people, across various organization functions.

In a broader sense, any innovation – including drug innovation that falls at the high end of the pharmaceutical value chain, is also basically a problem-solving initiative. This encompasses even some of the serendipitous discoveries, such as Viagra for erectile dysfunction. In this article, I shall try to explore the wider applications of a robust process in problem solving – the application of ‘Design Thinking’ in pharma industry.

‘Design Thinking’:

The roots of ‘Design Thinking’ hail back to the mid-1950s with the introduction of the subject, Design Science, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), says US Collective in a paper titled, “What is Design Thinking and how can businesses benefit from it?”

According to MIT Sloan School of Management: “Design thinking is an innovative problem-solving process rooted in a set of skills.”This process has been successfully applied to developing new products and services. It begins with understanding the unmet needs of customers. And from that insight emerges a process for innovation, encompassing concept development, applied creativity, prototyping, and experimentation. With the application of ‘design thinking’ in business, the success rate for any innovation has been seen to improve substantially.

In its analysis, MIT Sloan found that design-driven companies such as Apple, Coca-Cola, IBM, Nike, Procter & Gamble, and Whirlpool have outperformed the S&P 500 over the past 10 years by an accumulated 211 percent in what’s called the Design Value Index—a portfolio of 16 publicly traded companies that integrate design thinking into corporate strategy. According to a 2016 report from the Design Management Institute, this marks the third consecutive year the index has shown an excess of 200% over the S&P 500.

‘Design Thinking’ in pharma:

As we have seen, ‘design thinking’ approach is a human-centric way of problem-solving, understanding the user needs. In the pharma space, it’s problem solving to address its stakeholders’, including patients’ needs and requirements related to health. Thus, for innovative drug marketing, as well, ‘design thinking’ could play a very useful role to make all organizational activities patient-centric – for greater all-round corporate success.

In this context, an article on ‘design thinking’, appeared in the Financial Times on October 12, 2017 reported: “Development of a drug can take around 15 years. But by using the design-thinking process, you could make clinical trials shorter by collecting more real-time data. The manufacturing process and design of packaging could be improved by a better understanding of how drugs are being used. And costs could be reduced, enabling the more expensive drugs to be made more available.”

Four steps of ‘Design Thinking’:

MIT Sloan outlined 4 simple steps in ‘design thinking’ process, which I am summarizing in pharma perspective, as follows:

1.Understand the problem – the source could be both internal or external:

As MIT Sloan professor Steve Eppinger said: “Most people don’t make much of an effort to explore the problem space before exploring the solution space.”

This often happens in pharma too. It’s not very uncommon that looking at just manifestations of problems, a company will look for a solution – quite akin to providing symptomatic relief in the treatment of a disease.

Eppinger further articulated, the mistake that problem solvers usually make ‘is to try and empathize, connecting the stated problem only to their own experiences.’ This falsely leads to the belief that problem solvers completely understand the situation. But the actual problem is always much broader, more nuanced, or quite different from what people originally assume, he underscored.

2. Workout possible solutions – involving those who matter 

3. Prototype these, test and further refine

4. Implement the best possible solution

Professor Eppinger further said, people at work can use ‘design thinking’ not only to design a new product or service, but anytime they’ve got a challenge – a problem to solve. Applying ‘design thinking’ techniques to business problems, pharma companies can offer greater value to customers, and stay relevant.

Pharma companies imbibing ‘design thinking’:

There are examples that some pharma companies are seriously nurturing the concept of ‘design thinking.’ One such an instance was captured in an interview, published in pharmaphorum on May 3, 2018. During this interaction, the head of innovationof the global pharma major – UCB,articulated how his company is creating a culture based around ‘design thinking’, right across the organization.

Acknowledging that pharma is generally accused of being distant from patients that it intends to serve, he explained how UCB is aiming to address this issue byfostering a new patient-centric organizational culture through ‘Design thinking.’

Detailed analysis of the needs of the target audience following this process, and the use of insights thus gained, will also encourage researchers to create appropriate new products. The core idea is to create products that are led by the needs of customers – something that is so critical for pharma companies, particularly in increasingly competitive commercial landscape.  He advised people to be persistent and professional, as they measure and see the results, which has potential to create a snowball effect in the organization.

Conclusion:

Several studies indicate that the companies with a long track record of delivering stakeholder value, are more customer focused. Apparently, pharma players are progressively experiencing that for sustainable business excellence, their customers – including patients, should form the nucleus of corporate business strategy. The same concept should, thereafter, cascade down while developing the game plan for each functional area. There doesn’t seem to be any other viable alternative for the same, right now.

With upswing volatility in the business environment, ‘design thinking’ merits to become a relentless process, particularly for creating assertive employee-mindset to accept the challenge of perpetual change, anytime. Accordingly, a well-structured and equally well-integrated, ongoing feedback data generation mechanism, together with sophisticated analytical tools, supported by other requisite resources, should be put in place.

Ample evidences demonstrate that ‘design thinking’ helps business to stay always in sync with the market, customers and also its employees, for performance excellence. It can provide creative inputs for developing game changing business strategies, meeting customers’ new expectations, or even to reformulate those, which are yielding declining or sub-par outputs. Consequently, it becomes incumbent upon top decision makers to integrate this process into the pharma organizational culture.

Thus, I believe, ‘design thinking’ is an effective way of creative problem solving in a number of situations, having its source both within and outside the organization. It carries a promise of improved all-round corporate achievement – often translatiaing struggles into positive outcomes in the pharma business.

By: Tapan J. Ray   

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

Innovation: Is Big Pharma Talking Differently?

Posted on by
Reply

“Nearly 2 billion people have no access to basic medicines, causing a cascade of preventable misery and suffering. Good health is impossible without access to pharmaceutical products.” The World Health Organization’s (WHO) ‘Access to Medicine’ report on ‘Ten years in public health 2007–2017’ made this observation.

It also reemphasized: “A significant proportion of the world’s population, especially in developing countries, has yet to derive much benefit from innovations that are commonplace elsewhere.” Despite this, continued lobbying of many pharma companies for TRIPS-plus measures and legislation, the breaching of laws or codes relating to corruption and unethical marketing, and several blatant instances of company misconduct continues, even today.

In the midst of this situation, has Big Pharma started thinking differently about the purpose of innovation? I shall try to explore the ground reality in this article.

The argument of Big Pharma:

In response to the above observation or anything akin to that, Big Pharma has counter arguments, which are rather contentious, as many believe. They generally say, it is the responsibility of the different governments to alleviate health misery of the citizens, and not theirs. In tandem, they keep repeating the same old argument, underscoring lower prices of innovative drugs would lead to lower profit generation, significantly slowing down the process of innovation.

Drug innovation follows an arduous path and an expensive process: 

Big Pharma wants people to comprehend about what it entails in the journey of discovering a New Molecular Entity (NME) and converting it to a safe and effective medicine.

For example, in its booklet Bayer explained: ‘it takes about ten to twelve years to develop a new drug. during this time, highly qualified scientists from a variety of disciplines work on filtering out a suitable active ingredient from an enormous number of compounds. Between 5,000 and 10,000 compounds are rigorously studied in numerous laboratory tests and the best ones further optimized. out of four or five drug candidates that are then tested on humans in clinical studies often only one substance is approved and becomes available to physicians and patients.”

The entire process reportedly takes around 14 years, and according to a 2016 study by the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development - developing a new prescription drug, which gains marketing approval, is estimated to cost drug manufacturers USD 2.6 billion. Besides, a new analysis conducted at Forbes finds that getting a single drug to market may involve an expenditure of USD 350 million before the medicine is available for sale. It concludes, large pharmaceutical companies that are working on dozens of drug projects, spend USD 5 billion per new medicine.

Drug innovation is only for those who can afford:

As is being witnessed by many, Big Pharma always tend to argue that high R&D costs drive new drug prices up in pharma. Moving a step further, that drug innovation is for only those patients who can afford, was justified even by the CEO of a major constituent of Big Pharma. An article published in Forbes Magazine on December 05, 2013 wrote: “At the Financial Times Global Pharmaceutical & Biotech Conference this week, Bayer AG CEO, Marijn Dekkers, is reported to have said that Bayer didn’t develop its cancer drug, Nexavar (sorafenib) for India but for Western patients that can afford it.”

How strong is the justification for high new drug cost?   

Instead of believing the pharma argument on its face value, it will be worthwhile to go for a dip-stick analysis. One such analysis, titled “Pharmaceutical industry profits and research and development”, published by the USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy on November 17, 2017, presents some interesting facts.

It says, the pharmaceutical industry is a high-fixed-cost and low-marginal-cost industry. This means, as the authors explain, that the cost of bringing a new drug to market is very high and the process is risky, while the cost of producing an extra unit of a product that is on the market is frequently “pennies a pill”. It also, indicates, though there is a disagreement about the exact cost of bringing a new drug to market, there is general recognition that the process costs run a fewhundreds of millions of dollars per new drug. Thus, innovative drugs are supposed to be somewhat more expensive to many patients. But how much – is the question to ponder, I reckon.

An example of a new drug pricing:

Let me choose here, as an example, the pricing of one of the most contentious, but undoubtedly a breakthrough medicine – Sovaldi (Sofosbuvir) of Gilead. Sofosbuvir was discovered in 2007 – not by Gilead Sciences, but by Michael Sofia, a scientist at Pharmasset. The drug was first tested on human successfully in 2010. However, on January 17, 2012 Gilead announced completion of the acquisition of Pharmasset at approximately USD 11.2 billion.

Subsequently, on December 06, 2013, US-FDA approved Gilead’s Sovaldi (Sofosbuvir) for the treatment of Chronic Hepatitis C. Sovaldi was priced at USD 1,000 a day in the U.S., costingUSD 84,000 for a course of treatment. That Gilead can’t justify the price of its hepatitis C therapy – Sovaldi, was highlighted in an article with a similar title, published in the Forbes Magazine on June 17, 2014.

It is worth mentioning that Sovaldi costs around USD 67,000 for a course of therapy, in Germany. Whereas, it costs round USD 55,000 in Canada and the United Kingdom (UK). Gilead has accepted an altogether different pricing strategy for Sovaldi in some other countries, such as India and Egypt.

When the above concept is used to explain Sovaldi pricing:

The above Forbes paper explained its pricing by saying: “Add in other therapies that supplement Sovaldi, and now you’re talking about USD 100,000 or so to treat a single patient. To use Sovaldi to treat each of the 3 million hepatitis C patients in the United States, it would cost around USD 300 billion, or about the same amount we annually spend for all other drugs combined.”

Let me now put a couple of important numbers together to get a sense of the overall pricing scenario of a new drug. The New York Times (NYT) reported on February 03, 2015: “Gilead Sciences sold USD 10.3 billion of its new hepatitis C drug Sovaldi in 2014, a figure that brought it close to being the best-selling drug in the world in only its first year on the market.”

Against its just the first-year sale, let me put the cost of acquisition of Sovaldi at USD 11.2 billion, an expenditure of USD 350 million before the medicine is available for sale as calculated in the Forbes articleand the cost to manufacture a pill of Sovaldi at around USD 130. This reinforces the point, beyond any doubt how ‘outrageous’ its pricing is.Even Gilead’s CEO admitted to failures in setting price of Sovaldi at USD 1,000-A-Pill, said another article on the subject. More important is, the costs to Gilead for Sovaldi acquisition and launch were virtually recovered in just a little over a year, but Sovaldi’s original price tag remains unaltered.

Is the Big Pharma talking differently now?

It appears that some constituents of Big Pharma have now started talking differently in this regard, publicly – at least, in letters, if not in both letter and spirit. Be that as it may, one will possibly be too naïve to accept such sporadic signals coming from pharma, as a shift in their fundamental thought pattern on drug innovation as a profit booster. Being highly optimistic in this area, I would rather say that these are early days to conclude that Big Pharma has really accepted the reality that – drug innovation is only meaningful, if it reaches those patients who need them the most.

Changing…not changing…or early days?

Let me explain this point with examples of changing…not changing…orearly days.

Changing?

On July 24, 2018 during an interview to Pharm Exec the head of the sub-Saharan African region for Roche made some key points, such as:

  • Groundbreaking innovation in medical science is only meaningful, if it reaches the patients who need it.
  • Access to healthcare is a multidimensional challenge and key to addressing the barriers, is really understanding them
  • Need to create a new business model that can sustainably – and this is very important – create access for patients.

Not changing?

When one Big Pharma constituent is showing some change in its approach on the purpose of innovation, another constituent is trying to make the entry of cheaper biosimilar drugs even tougher. This creates yet another doubt – both on safety and efficacy of biosimilars, as compared to much higher priced off-patent original biologic drugs.In August 2018, Pfizer reportedly called for US-FDA guidance on ‘false or misleading information’ about biosimilars, citing some of the following examples from other Big Pharma constituents, such as:

  • Genentech’s “Examine Biosimilars” website, which states that “the FDA requires a biosimilar to be highly similar, but not identical to the existing biologic medicine.” Pfizer argues that Genentech’s omission of the fact that an approved biosimilar must have no clinically meaningful differences from its reference product is a failure to properly communicate the definition of a biosimilar.
  • Janssen Biotech’s patient brochure for brand-name Remicade, which states that a biosimilar works “in a similar way” to a biosimilar without clarifying that the biosimilar must have the same mechanism of action as the originator. Pfizer also takes issue with the brochure’s suggestion that no infliximab biosimilar has been proven to be safe or effective in a switching study.
  • Amgen’s April 13, 2018, tweet that states that patients may react differently to biosimilars than to reference products. Pfizer also points out an Amgen YouTube video that implies that switching to a biosimilar is unsafe for patients who are well controlled on a current therapy.

Interestingly, on July 20, 2018 Pfizer announced that the US-FDA has approved Nivestym (filgrastim-aafi), a biosimilar to Neupogen (filgrastim) of Amgen, for all eligible indications of the reference product. This is the fourth US-FDA approved Pfizer biosimilar drug, the marketing and sales promotion of which expectedly, I reckon, will be no different from other biosimilars.

Early days?

Yes, it appears so. These are early days to draw any definitive conclusion on the subject.

Conclusion:

W.H.O observed in its above report that the ‘overall situation is somewhat improving’. It was also corroborated in the ‘2016 Access to Medicines Index’, which gave high marks to those companies that negotiated licenses for antiretrovirals and hepatitis C medicines through the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP). MPP was set up in 2010 as a public health organization supported by the United Nations to improve access to HIV, hepatitis and tuberculosis treatments in low- and middle- income countries.

It could well be, on the purpose of drug innovation some new realization has dawned, at least, on some few global pharma majors. However, it is still difficult to fathom its depth, at this point of time. There is no conclusive signal to believe that the Big Pharma is now thinking differently on the subject, not just yet.

By: Tapan J. Ray   

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

Multichannel Marketing: Two Important Pharma Trends

Posted on by
Reply

On September 6, 2018, Reuters reported the announcement of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) that it would cut about 650 positions in the United States related to a global restructuring program. This includes 450 Medical (sales) Representatives (MR). Similar announcements on job cuts for MRs by other pharma companies are being made since the last several years. Last week’s GSK announcement was the continuation of the same process. This prompts me to use the aforementioned global news while focusing on two important emerging trends in the pharma industry, as we witness today.

In the rapidly digitalized world, several broader questions are often raised today. These include whether or not e-detailing in the pharma industry will eliminate the role of MRs, or for that matter will digital marketing replace the pharma print media? As the concept of ‘multichannel marketing’ (MCM) gains momentum, finding right answers to these questions or at least the right trends are assuming as much importance for business success. As I don’t have any specific answers to these queries, in this article, let me discuss just two of these emerging trends, as appears to me.

Importance of multichannel marketing in pharma:

Many pharma companies are fast realizing that their customers, such as doctors, patients and others, are showing increasing interest in getting the requisite product or treatment related information from multiple readily available channels or sources. These are accessible both in digital and print platforms, which are often of independent origin. Such behavioral preferences of pharma customers are contrary to what was mostly happening in the past, globally. However, in the pharma world of contemporary India the same old traditional path of product information flow, from drug companies through Medical Representatives to doctors, continues, by and large.

Looking ahead, ‘multichannel marketing’ for pharmaceutical and biologic products is being generally considered as the recipe for commercial success of brands. Thus, pharma players are trying to engage their customers more through multiple channels, both directly or indirectly. This is happening in many countries of the world. It is a matter of time, I reckon, that majority of large to medium Indian drug manufacturers will also follow suit.

Two interesting trends:  

As multichannel marketing in pharma catches up, I find some interesting developments. These are outcomes of different channels getting balanced, based on customer preferences. Let me underscore, these are customers’ perceptions in the real world and not what the drug companies and their associates usually think, hence are worth considering. The two emerging trends, in my view, are as follows:

1. Although, the role of Medical Representatives is still important, but not as indispensable as was in the past.

2. Despite high decibel discussion over digital media, print media is still very relevant.

1. Impact on the role of Medical Representatives (MR): 

“There is an ongoing debate about the effectiveness and impact of the traditional sales representative, with some arguing to discontinue the role while others sense an opportunity to improve both rep productivity and efficiency.” This was articulated in a McKinsey & McKinsey paper titled, “Death of a sales model or not.” The same article also says, even those who champion the role, point out that using richer analytics, better leadership and aligned incentives to deliver stellar results in many geographies.

To comprehend what is really happening in this area, I would quote below from two important global survey reports, with a sincere wish that similar surveys are carried out in India too. Although, these two surveys are different in nature, but address the same basic issue.

A. ZS’s Access Monitor 2014 survey:

According to this survey, “Representatives access to physicians continues to decline, particularly in certain specialties and areas of the country. Overall, close to half of all doctors in the United States are now considered “access restricted” to varying degrees.” It further says: “Since the initial ‘Access Monitor’survey in 2008, access has steadily fallen, with 77 percent of physicians considered “accessible” that year, compared with 65 percent in 2012, 55 percent in 2013 and 51 percent in 2014.

In another important finding the same study captured that “the pharmaceutical and biotech industry wastes approximately USD 1.4 billion in infeasible calls. (A call is considered infeasible if a best-in-class sales rep can’t deliver it.) The cost of infeasible calls appears to have plateaued, as companies have largely squeezed out sales force inefficiencies— making alternative channels the best path to improving access and customer engagement.”

B. CMI/Compas Media Vitals research 2018:

Despite such debate, doctors still value face to face interaction with MR, across the world. However, the digital tools and platforms of various types are increasingly used as the source of both new and existing product information, including updates.

According to CMI/Compas Media Vitals research 2018, as shown in the Table I below, doctors’ dependence on MR for information on new and existing products now stands at 51 percent and 46 percent, respectively. Similarly, for product updates their dependence stands at just 39 percent. The above McKinsey & McKinsey paper also predicts that the number of MR will gradually decline as the multichannel marketing initiatives pick up.

That said, in Table I – dinner meeting ranks seven and peer to peer information comes in the third place. Digital sources when put together now occupy a significant part of the doctors’ preferences for obtaining product information.This is also clear from the Table I that the doctors have started showing interest e-detailing, as well.

Table I:  How do you want to receive information from pharma companies, for:

In % New Products Existing Products Product Update
E-detailing

15

16

13
EHR

16

16

26
Reps’ Email

21

7

27
Medical Journal

22

19

12
MSL

24

23

14
Pharma Brand E-Mail

24

21

28
Direct Mail

32

29

29
Peer-to-peer

47

40

21
Dinner Meetings

49

45

24
Representatives

51

46

39

(Source CMI/Compass Media Vitals 2018)

Dinner Meetings:

As I said before, “Dinner Meetings” were rated as the second most preferred choice of the doctors for getting new and existing product information, in the above Table I. This is interesting, especially when one reads it along with the findings of the research paper, published in the August 2016 issue of JAMA Internal Medicine. The study concluded with: “The receipt of industry-sponsored meals was associated with an increased rate of prescribing the promoted brand-name medication relative to alternatives within the drug class.” The paper also clarified that “the findings represent an association, not a cause-and-effect relationship.”

2. Print media remains relevant despite digital push:

The research by CMI/Compass Media Vitals 2018 has also shown that despite the abundant availability of online versions of various medical publications, many doctors still prefer to read the print format of the same Journal, as shown below in the Table II:

Table II. How do doctors read medical Journals? 

Online/Digital format (%)

Print format (%)

47

53

(Source CMI/Compass Media Vitals 2018)

Although, the professional portals are the most used to get the requisite information by the doctors, print journals still rank number three, after peer-to-peer information.

That print media is still relevant for the doctors to know about drugs, was confirmed by another study, as shown in Table III:

Table III. Print media is still relevant:

Professional Portal Colleagues Print Journals CME Meetings Online Journals Drug Ref. App In Person Speaker program
72% 67% 66% 66% 53% 53% 53% 53%

(Source :Kantar Sources & Interactions report from September 2017)

It is noteworthy that ‘online journals’ rank number 5, after ‘CME meeting’.

Conclusion:

Despite Millennials in India mostly prefer reading news online through digital media, print media has still remained relevant and growing too. So are the television channels, regardless of easy availability of anytime streaming of all types of news, videos, TV serials and even movies.

Moreover, with increasing preference of digital media by an increasing number of populations, reliance of many industries such as Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) haven’t totally shifted from magazine and newspaper advertisements, alongside targeting their customers through digital platforms. The same is expected to happen with various print formats in multichannel pharma marketing, where the physical presence of MRs still play an important role. Thus, to create a greater impact on doctors, patients and other stakeholders, pharma marketers are expected to leverage the best of both print and digital world in the form of comprehensive MCM initiatives. It could well be more on digital platforms and less with print materials, as we move on.

The new role of MRs was epitomized in an interview of the Sales Director, Roche, UK, published in the eyeforpharma on January 26, 2018. In the words of the sales director: “For us, in our market, the traditional showing a visual aid and some messages with the HCP is dead… But the face to face meeting is certainly not. Its role, however, will be more about adding value, about finding the right patients for the right drug.” He further highlighted, “the clear challenge that stands before the pharmaceutical industry’s sales organizations; a world where access to physicians is diminishing, trust in the information the industry provides is dwindling, and having a costly sales force is increasingly hard to defend.”

Against this backdrop, regardless of MCM, the role of those MRs who will be in sync with the requisite applications of technology in their focus areas of work, will continue to remain relevant, though they will be lesser in number. A few of them will also stand out and shoulder higher and higher professional responsibilities in the industry.  Be that as it may, in my view, these two emerging trends are expected to gather a strong tailwind, at least in the medium to long term, heralding the dawn of a new era in the Indian pharma industry.

By: Tapan J. Ray   

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

Patients’ Trust And Pharma Remain Strange Bedfellows?

Posted on by
Reply

Like many other industries, pharmaceutical companies too often talk about improving focus on effective ‘stakeholder-relationship management’. The doctors obviously form an integral part of this process. There is nothing wrong with it. Nevertheless, serious concern of ‘conflict of interest’ between the two entities is being raised on the means adopted to achieve the targeted end results.

Much as the drug makers expect that these methods are easily justifiable and would not bother anyone, it usually doesn’t happen that way, especially among the informed patients. When patient-interest gets compromised in this complex transactional web, the residual impact is awfully negative. Over a period of time, such episodes lead to a patient-doctor trust-gap, having a snowballing effect on the integral constituent of this saga – the pharma industry.

In this article, I shall briefly explore the scale and depth of such trust-gap and try to fathom who can effectively address this cancerous spread. This initiative when implemented well, won’t just protect patients’ health interest, ensuring affordable health care of good quality for all. It will also help rejuvenate pharma players’ declining reputation, facilitating long-term business interest –unchained by too many stifling regulations.  

For being in the paradise of health care…

‘Trust’ is the bedrock of any meaningful relationship and is usually built based on one’s experience, perception and feelings, besides a few other factors. It falls apart in the presence of deception or lies, even if these are well camouflaged. Similarly, clandestine acts when unearthed could also lead to the same outcome. The charted pathways for development or collapse of patients’ trust regarding doctors, or government policy makers trust towards pharma players are fundamentally no different.

In a scenario where patients can trust doctors for suggesting the best affordable treatment of good quality, including safe and effective drugs; hospitals and caregivers are just and conscientious; insurance companies are caring and fair in their dealings; drug prices are rational; published clinical trial reports on drug efficacy and safety are unbiased, the communication from pharma companies are trustworthy without any hidden agenda – we are living in the paradise of health care.

Nonetheless, the same paradise built on patients’ valuable trust would get shattered, as the drug regulators and the media get to know and unearth lies and clandestine dealings between doctors and pharma companies. Patients soon realize, though the hard way that they are being short-changed. A trust-gap is created, giving rise to an avoidable vicious cycle in the healthcare space. It is difficult to break, as one witness today, but not impossible, either.

The trust-gap is all pervasive:

Although, we are discussing here the trust-gap between doctors and drug companies on the one hand, and patients, drug policy makers and the regulators on the other – the trust-gap is all pervasive. This is vindicated by a startling headline of the January 16, 2018 edition of a leading Indian business daily. It says: “Over 92% people don’t trust the health care system in India: Study”.

It quotes the GOQii India Fit 2018 report saying a large part of which includes doctors, hospitals, pharma, insurance companies and diagnostic labs. The following table shows the ranking of some these constituents in terms of trust gap of Indians.

Rank Healthcare system People don’t trust (%)
1. Hospitals 74
2. Pharma companies 62.8
3. Insurance companies 62.8
4. Medical clinics 52.6
5. Doctors 50.6
6. Diagnostic Labs 46.1

The survey emphasizes that a series of failure, particularly the negligence of hospitals in the recent past has made it hard to trust in the system. The lack of transparency was the other reason that stands out.

Not a recent phenomenon, but increasing:

A trust-deficit in the healthcare system isn’t a recent phenomenon. This was corroborated in the article, titled ‘Doctors, patients, and the drug industry: Partners, friends, or foes?’ It was published almost a decade ago – in the February 07, 2009 edition (Volume 338) of the British Medical Journal (BMJ). The authors quoted a contemporary report issued by the ‘Royal College of Physicians’, which captured an all-time low relationship between the drug industry, academia, healthcare professionals, and patients, even at that time. The paper suggested that it is in the interests of all parties to bridge the trust-gap, without further delay.

As mentioned before, this particular discussion will focus on just two areas – pharma companies and the doctors – not all constituents of the health care system. This is primarily to have a congruity with my previous discussion on the importance of ‘perception’ in pharma. From that perspective, it is evident from the BMJ paper that a trust-gap exists not just in the doctor-patient relationship, but also between the drug policy makers and the pharma industry. I shall try to drive home this point with the following two examples.

 A. The trust-gap in doctor-patient relationships for ‘Conflict of Interests’:

The article titled, “Conflict of Interest in Medicine” featuring in the JAMA Network on May 02, 2017 described ‘Conflict of Interest’ as ‘a situation in which a person is or appears to be at risk of acting in a biased way because of personal interests.’

The article further elaborated thatdoctors’ relationships with drug companies (including any payments or gifts received from the companies) might affect how they report the results of research studies, what they teach medical students about particular drugs, or what treatments they recommend for patients. Moreover, doctors may preferentially refer patients to those diagnostic facilities for tests that may financially benefit them for doing so.

B. The trust gap between the government policy makers and the pharma industry:

That such trust-deficit is all pervasive, gets reverberated even through the speeches of no less than the Prime Minister of India.

On April 18, 2018, during an interactive session of theBharat Ki Baat, Sabka Saath‘ diaspora event at the Central Hall in Westminster, UK, Prime Minister Modi,reportedly said that doctors visit Singapore and Dubai to attend conferences, and not because someone is sick. “The pharma companies invite them for that. To finally break the resultant sale of expensive medicines, the government has launched generic stores where medicines of similar quality are sold at cheaper prices” – the PM further added during his interaction with the audience present in this function at London.

As expected, the medical community in India expressed displeasure over the remark of the PM on doctors and pharma companies on a foreign soil, the same media report highlighted.

Interestingly, just a year ago, on April 17, 2017, while inaugurating a hospital in Surat, a home to several top Indian generic drug makers Prime Minister Modi had said: “We are going to make legal arrangements to ensure that when doctors write prescriptions they write that generic medicines are sufficient and that there is no need for any other medicine.”

Some ineffective interventions:

As I said before, this downward spiral with a widening trust-gap in the healthcare space of the country needs to be arrested soon, with effective steps. The best remedial measure in such cases will obviously be self-regulation by all concerned, keeping patients’ interest at the center.

As an antidote to this problem, in the previous Government regime, ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’ was put in place, but only for voluntary implementation by the drug companies.

Enough time has elapsed in experimenting with this process, since then. Regrettably, like many other countries, self-regulation in this area to address the malady of trust deficit hasn’t worked in India too. Both the ‘Professional Conduct and Ethics’ of Medical Council of India (MCI) for doctors, and the UCPMP of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) for drug companies intended to address the so-called doctor-pharma industry unholy nexus, have not yielded expected results. The saga continues, unabated.

Conclusion:

From the patient-interest perspective, what is happening today in the global healthcare space is indeed baffling. Improving access to good quality, affordable drugs for all, has become a challenge in many countries, just as in India. Consequently, alleged unholy doctor-industry nexus that contributes a significant part to this problem, is attracting greater public attention today. The issue is being often raised even at the highest echelon of the incumbent government. But, more puzzling is, even after the PM’s public anguish, the DoP doesn’t seem to have walked the talk. Much hyped – the proposed mandatory UCPMP has not yet seen the light of the day, despite a clear indication of the same.

The question then arises, what happens if it does not happen due to political or any other compulsions? In that case, I reckon, the primary initiative to bridge the existing trust-gap, should rest on pharma companies. They may not always agree with all public allegations leveled against them, as the creator of this ungodly collaboration, and rightly so. Nonetheless, remaining in a perpetual denial mode in this regard, won’t help the pharma industry, anymore. More so, when the number of net-savvy, reasonably well-informed and globally connected patient groups, are fast increasing. Besides being fair in all business transactions, drug players need to sincerely engage with patients, not in usual condescending ways, but with due respect, for mutual benefits.

Otherwise, despite pharma industry and patients being interdependent in so many ways, sans a strict regulatory framework with legal teeth, ‘patients’ trust’ and ‘pharma’ will continue to remain uneasy, if not strange bedfellows.

By: Tapan J. Ray   

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

The Importance of Managing ‘Perception’ in Pharma

Posted on by
Reply

Each one of us – individually or collectively in a society, community or even as a supporter of anyone or anything, view certain things in a certain way, and tend to believe only this is true. This process consequently leads to developing a ‘perception’, which the Oxford dictionary defines as: “The way in which something is regarded, understood, or interpreted.”

A ‘perception’ once formed, creates a long-lasting impact – helps form a strong opinion, often making people judgmental in their expressions. Based on ‘perception’, people also try to act and influence others, which are not always in a persuasive manner. On the contrary, the methods, are at times rather coercive, using fear as the key. The sources that help create ‘perceptions’ may not be genuine, often fake or doctored and picked-up from half-baked, unproven and unverified provenance.

Just as any other business, in pharma industry too, stakeholder ‘perception’ plays a critical role, especially in building or tarnishing reputation of the sector or individual companies. In this article, I shall discuss, the importance of managing perception – the right way – overcoming a key barrier, for sustainable business success.

‘Perception’ often stands between success and failure or winning and losing:

In today’s world ‘perception’ often stands between success and failure or winning and losing, more than ever before. Creating and maintaining a ‘positive perception’ is time consuming and a challenging task, for anything. Interestingly, a negative ‘perception’ may also be deliberately created for self-serving purposes, and that too in a much shorter time. Although, there is a high financial cost attached to it, such instances aren’t too few, either.

Umpteen number of instances can be cited, in this regard. However, to drive home the point, let me quote just two examples – the first one is of a negative ‘perception’ mostly created by the industry from within. The other one – again a negative perception that prevails outside the industry, but mostly created due to the acts pursued within the industry. Interestingly, both these adversely impact the pharma consumers too, and are tough to neutralize.

1. ‘Perception’ created by the industry insiders:

The general ‘perception’ that ‘branded generic drugs’ are superior to more affordable ‘non-branded generic medicines’, mostly in terms of overall quality, efficacy and safety. This negative ‘perception’ has been successfully created without enough credible scientific evidence, and irrespective of names, size and the operational scale of the manufacturers. It is worth noting, both need drug regulatory approval and all such approvals come only in the generic names – and not in any brand name. The brands for a generic drug molecule may be as many as, say sixty or hundred, or even more. So are the numbers of ‘non-branded generics.’

To enable the consumers availing benefits of this category of drugs in reducing out of pocket expenditure on medicines, both the State and the Central Governments in India are trying hard through various measures, such as ‘Jan Aushadhi Scheme’. But the negative perception towards ‘non-branded generics’ doesn’t seem to wane a bit, in the face of an ongoing campaign to maintain the status quo.

2. ‘Perception’ created outside, due to the acts of the industry:

Similarly, the general negative ‘perception’ leading to a declining reputation of the industry, prevails across the world – even in India. Again, the issues leading to such negative perception may, at times, be grossly exaggerated and generalized. But the fact remains, despite serious attempts by individual companies and their lobby groups to negate the same, it continues to exist. Nevertheless,continuing efforts by the industry in this direction, which are often quite expensive, are visible globally.

Let me illustrate this point quoting a recent media report on PhRMA – arguably the largest pharma trade body globally. As the pharmaceutical industry faces potential pricing reform and continued criticism from patient advocates, PhRMA reportedly spent US$ 15.5 million lobbying in the first half of this year, which is an 11.5 percent increase (US$ 1.6 million) compared with the same period last year. But, the negative ‘perception’ is too strongly entrenched to neutralize so quickly and effectively. It continues to exist.

That the money spent to alleviate the impact of negative ‘perception’ has not yielded results since long, is vindicated by the June 19, 2018 Business Insider report. Quoting the research and consulting firm Reputation Institute, it says, in 2018, the pharma giants saw a 3.7 percent decline in reputation score from last year. This was driven by a decline in the public perception of transparency, openness and authenticity of drug makers. In the midst of an overall descending trend, of the 22 pharma companies ranked, Sanofi features in the first and Pfizer takes the last positions.

Reported practices of drug makers also influence public ‘perception’: 

While explaining why Pfizer has been ranked 22 with a strong negative ‘perception’, the same Business Insider article reported as follows:

“Pfizer had the lowest reputation score among the pharmaceutical companies that the Reputation Institute looked at, based on the general public’s perception of the product, prices and public hospitality. It was reported in May that Pfizer used charity to mask a heart drug price hike. Pfizer also had a huge role in the drug shortage crisis, according to Fortune.”

Similarly, in a relative yardstick, better public ‘perception’ for Sanofi’s among the big pharma players were ascribed to the following reasons:

“Sanofi’s winning characteristics lies in its promotion of ethics and transparency, according to Reputation Institute. Sanofi has in the past year promised to limit price increases and disclose ‘transparency reports’ behind overall costs of its drugs.”

Destructive power of negative ‘perception’ on pharma industry:

An interesting survey, titled “Restoring trust in the pharmaceutical industry by translating expectations into actions” conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) Health Research Institute captures the realities of ‘perception’ on the pharma industry. Pharmaceutical industry executives, consumers, and stakeholders, such as doctors in physician groups, researchers in academia, former health policy makers, hospital executives, managed care organization executives, participated in this survey.

The paper highlighted that ‘perception’ driven peoples’ behavior is triggered by a myriad of reasons attributing to the recent loss of trust of key pharma stakeholders’, such as regulators, payers, physicians, and patients. The authors suggested, the industry should act to restore trust as the central tenet of all of its relationships.

Two major perceptions of pharma consumers and stakeholders were captured, as follows:

  • A high percentage of pharmaceuticals in the total healthcare costs, distorts the value–for–money argument used by the industry.
  • The process and the nature, extent and quantum of money spent on pharmaceutical sales and marketing lack transparency, especially with respect to drug risks and benefits.

Constructive power of positive ‘perception’ needs to be strengthened:

Likewise, the constructive power of positive ‘perception’ needs to be strengthened.

Let me illustrate this point with three examples out of many. The first two examples come from the pharma players in India, and the third one from a top non-pharma giant.

- To add public confidence to the corporate brand and strengthen its image among its stakeholders in India, Mankind Pharma appointed Amitabh Bachchan as the brand ambassador. The company wants to primarily emphasize the importance of good health and affordable treatment for all.

- To enhance public ‘perception’ and corporate reputation further, Abbott rolled out a corporatecampaign in India – ‘live life to the fullest.’ The advertisement communicates to the people in an interesting way that “At Abbott, we’re all about helping you live the best life you can through good health. We keep your heart healthy, nourish your body at every stage of life, help you see clearly, and bring you information and medicines to manage your health. Every day and around the world, we’re discovering new ways to make life better.”

Since,the public ‘perception’ of pharma keeps getting worse, let me illustrate the point of constructive power of ‘perception’ from the huge success of several companies from the tech industry. As featured in Tech Times on July 23, 2016, in the ‘perception strength’ of customers in the world on a yearly basis, Apple Inc ranked the world’s top company in 2016 followed by Microsoft.This survey conducted by FutureBrand asked 3,000 customers to rank the big enterprises by 18 different factors, such as trust, price premium, individuality and innovation.

As defined by the survey report, “future brands” are those with a high chance to grow in the future. One of the defining characteristics of such a brand is that it has a consistent balance between the customers’ perception of its purpose and its delivered experience, the article indicated.And that’s exactly what constructive power of ‘perception’ that needs to be strengthened.

…But a key barrier to remedial measures still exists in pharma:

Regardless of industry’s intensive advocacy and multimedia initiatives, a strong negative ‘perception’ on pharma business persists. One of the reasons could be that the nature of most of these overt and covert measures questions the stakeholders for their negative ‘perception’ – justifying the industry practices. This approach often boomerangs. Consequent responses keep getting stronger – leading to a no-win situation. This arises out of a discord between the two concerned entities on the merits of the views that lead to adverse ‘perception’.

The PWC research paper quoted above also substantiates this point. It brings to the fore that pharmaceutical executives and stakeholders hold strikingly different views on a number of issues related to the development of ‘perception’ affecting the reputation.

The article, titled ‘Reputation and Its Risks’, published in the February 2007 issue of Harvard Business Review (HBR) also emphasizes, a clear recognition that reputation is a matter of ‘perception’ of stakeholders, will help companies to effectively manage their reputation. It also says, if companies fail to be in sync with stakeholders’ changing beliefs and expectations, building reputation through effective ‘perception’ management, would appear a tough call.

Conclusion:

Public ‘perception’ plays a crucial role, not just in shaping government policies and regulations, but also in the long-term business success. More positive the ‘perceptions’ are, easier will it be for the company to smoothly sail through, in business – even while navigating through occasional headwinds. Thus, the ability in shaping up a positive ‘perception’ for any business, is fast emerging as an antidote even to any possibility of getting ultimately shipped out. This ability is not dependent just on presenting hard positive facts to all concerned, but a tad more.

Which is why, it is so critical to understand the root cause of the views or ‘perceptions’ of the stakeholders in the industry or an individual company. In case of pharma, when the ‘perception’ is so negative, it will be worthwhile to neutralize it first, rather than immediately trying to counter it with a fresh coat of yet one more fact-based narrative. As a ‘perception’ is not necessarily based on hard facts, such attempts may lead to a never-ending debate on which ‘perception’ is right – ‘your perception’ or ‘my perception’, rather than ‘what is right to do’?’

There lies, therefore, the criticality of effective management of ‘perception’ in pharma. The situation, I reckon, would be even more challenging in the days ahead, if the stakeholders and the pharma industry continue to hold strikingly different views on a number of crucial issues related to the development of such ‘perception’ – further denting its already dented reputation.

By: Tapan J. Ray   

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

For Patient-Centricity: Emerging a C-Suite Role

Posted on by
Reply

Regardless of skepticism of many, the formidable power of physicians to take all treatment decisions for patients, is gradually getting moderated, globally. Although, its pace may vary from country to country. An increasing number of more informed patients are carving out a greater role for themselves in this important process.

The central focus for brand demand generation can no longer remain just on the doctors. This is because, as I wrote this in my article, published in this Blog on July 06, 2015: “Slowly but steadily the process of taking treatment decisions for the patients is undergoing a metamorphosis, where well informed patients no longer want to play just a passive role. These patients want the doctors to take a final decision on their treatment only after meaningful interactions with them.” Besides a broad prescription pattern, this includes the medicines that they will consume, including meaningful details on product cost against the benefits to be accrued.

The age-old practice of doing a little bit on patient education or compliance, are grossly inadequate in an evolving new scenario. The good news is, many pharma companies have started realizing that appropriate engagement with patients to deliver what they want and more, can lead to better financial performance.

Consequently, the ball game for prescription demand generation is showing early signs of a change – somewhat radical in nature. To spearhead this unavoidable metamorphosis for the organization, there surfaced a brand-new role of a CxO – The Chief Patient Officers (CPO).

This new senior management position is expected to direct organizational focus on patients. Understand their concerns, needs, wants and goals, particularly in the disease areas where the company represents. And finally, give shape to new multichannel well-coordinated platforms of patient engagement, for better commercial returns. In this article, I shall try to explore how this transformation pans out, if at all.

The direction is right, but patients must feel the change:

As I said before, some pharma players have started accepting the reality. The crucial need for an organization to become ‘Patients-Centric’ can’t be wished away anymore. For example, a 2015 “Industry Healthcheck” survey where 1600 pharma executives participated, found that 85 percent of respondents agreed that ‘Patient-Centricity’ is the best route to improve profitability, in the fast changing business environment.

It is perhaps well understood that the pharma industry has arrived at this point due to increasing access of the general population to easily available, all-kind of information on the cyber space, including health care. The enabling facility has already prompted many patients evaluating various treatment options for a disease, including choice of drugs and their cost.

As a result, pharma companies felt the necessity to have a new leader who will give a new perspective and direction in creating a new value for the organization, for a sustainable progress. This involves charting a comprehensive pathway to gradually shift the entire company focus on ‘patients for products’, and not on ‘products for patients.’

According to reports, a few global pharma majors, such as Merck and Sanofi already have their CPO in place, but patients are yet to feel any difference on the ground even for these companies, as many say.

What exactly is ‘Patient-Centricity?’ – Two perspectives:

It won’t be a bad idea to get to know two different perspectives on what ‘Patient-Centricity’ exactly is – one from a CPO and the other from patient groups, as follows:

A. 3 three pillars of ‘Patient-Centricity’ from the CPO perspective:

To get a ringside perspective to this question from the industry, let me quote from the first CPO - Anne C. Beal appointed in a top-10 pharma – Sanofi, on March 31, 2014, though the CPO position is in existence, since 2012.

On December 2014, at the 11th annual Patient Summit USA conference, Anne Beal, reportedly deliberated on the three pillars of her company’s patient-centric strategy, which I shall describe, as follows:

  • Utilizing patients’ input to get a better sense of their needs in order to design and deliver solutions that help fulfill them.
  • Engaging and supporting patients to ensure the solutions that the company delivers help enhance their lives and improve outcomes.
  • Involving with the company employees and supporting them to create an engaged community and patient-centric culture.

B. 9 attributes of ‘Patient-Centricity’ from the patients’ perspective:

‘Patient View’ – a UK-based research, publishing, and consultancy group, arrived at the ‘9 Key Attributes’ of ‘Patient-Centricity’. This is based on the analysis of feedbacks (2016-17) from 2,000 patient groups worldwide, 50+ different medical specialties in 100+ countries. The critical attributes of the same that patients want to see in a drug company can be summarized, as follows:

  • Demonstrate integrity and authenticity through all company actions.
  • Understand all the issues that patients face ‘beyond the pill’ and help in dealing with them.
  • Transparency in drug pricing policy, research, results, funding relationship.
  • Ensure that all patients are included in access strategies, regardless of the returns to the company.
  • Products to provide quantifiable value to patients.
  • Reliable supply and comprehensive patient safeguard.
  • Provide quality product information – Consistent, current, balanced and usable.
  • Patient group relation – good intention, effective governance, communication and training.
  • Ensure patients are engaged and their opinions are sought at each stage of R&D.

On a broader canvas, the two perspectives on ‘Patient-Centricity’ – one from the CPO and the other from the patients’ groups, do have some important similarities. Nevertheless, I reckon, the CPOs would still need to cover more ground to match patients’ expectations from a ‘Patient-Centric’ pharma company. 

Claimants of ‘patient-centric’ focus are many, but few deliver consistently:

Quite expectedly, there are many claimants for a ‘patient-centric’ organizational focus. Interestingly, few actually deliver consistently. This was vindicated in the article – ‘How patient-centric is the pharma industry’, published by PDD - a design and innovation consultancy firm on June 06, 2016.

The paper indicates both the up and downside of pharma company claims on ‘Patient-Centricity.’ The upside is that the hype has influenced, at least, some drug players to openly talk about the need to shift the company focus more on patients. A few have initiated some tangible action, as well. Whereas, the downside of it is the lack of consistency in the enthusiasm of ‘patient-centric’ actions by these companies. To illustrate the point, let me quote the following two examples from the article:

  • In the 2013 survey on ‘Patient-Centricity’ by the research firm ‘Patient View’, ViiV Healthcare (the GSK & Pfizer joint venture focused on HIV therapies), Gilead, AbbVie, Menarini and Janssen occupied the top 5 spots.
  • However, in the ‘eyeforpharma Barcelona Awards 2016 ’ that too focuses on ‘Patient-Centricity’, none of these companies featured in the “Most Valuable Patient Initiative or Service” category. Whereas, Sanofi took the top spot, and Merck, Roche, Novartis and TEVA were the remaining nominees.

The criteria of the two selection processes, apparently being similar, this is interesting. More so, when the ‘patient-centric’ focus of an organization is an ongoing strategy, with a ‘top priority’ tag attached to it.

Be that as it may, that some serious efforts being made by a few companies in this area, can’t be brushed aside, either, regardless of the fact that the CPO position came into existence, since 2012. It flagged, at that time, the criticality of ‘Patient-Centricity’ in the pharmaceutical business and possibly, sent a signal to pharma players for a course correction, in this direction, soon enough.

Conclusion:

In an interview, published in December 2016 issue of McKinsey Quarterly, LEO Pharma’s president and CEO, Gitte Aabo, aptly summarized the process of ‘Patient-Centricity’, as follows:

“Patient-Centricity means being deeply entrenched in the patient’s needs, not just thinking about how to develop new products and new features. It means reaching out to patients and considering treatments that will help them in whatever situation they find themselves in.”

However, since long, most drug manufacturers are apparently solely driven by commercial considerations, both for new drug discovery and also in generic product development. Subsequent marketing strategies are obviously an integral component of the same organizational thought leadership and value chain. Several examples from the current status of the R&D pipeline for multi-drug resistant antibiotics, or what is happening even with the generic drug pricing in many countries, including the United States, will vindicate this point.

That said, a mild wind of change on the sails of traditional pharma mindset seems to be slowly catching up, as some CPOs position themselves in the saddle. Hopefully, this will  ultimately make patients the centerpiece of pharma business. Can more of this kind of actions be construed as signals for imbibing ‘Patient-Centricity’ by the drug companies? Will its impact be visible and felt by all – in real life, soon?

By: Tapan J. Ray   

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.