Category Archives: Blog

An Interesting Link: Productivity At Work And Employee Fitness (Part 2)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 2: Mental Fitness

As I wrote in my previous article, the complex multi-factorial work-life challenges in today’s Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous (VUCA)) world are virtually unprecedented.

Interestingly, a sizeable part of such challenge is related to a wide variety of internal organizational factors. These often include changes at the senior management level or in the key corporate policies, or the likes. More often, the changing aspirations and outlook of both the younger and even the aging professionals, in the midst of newer complexities of life – not well-understood by the management, invite such a situation.

Taking note of the influencing factors:

Meeting challenges of some of these disruptive changes, many companies are working on the respective influencing factors in various critical areas.

According to an article, titled “Meeting the Challenge of Disruptive Change”, published by the Harvard Business Review (HBR) in its March-April 2000 issue writes: “Our research suggests that three factors affect what an organization can and cannot do: its resources, its processes, and its values.” It then elaborates by saying that the second factor – processes, also means what the company leadership uses to transform resources into products and services of greater worth.

These processes, I reckon, encompass the effective use of various ‘employee engagement’ programs. As a part of which, employee fitness programs are now being encouraged at the corporate level, seriously. I have discussed in my previous article, the ‘Physical Fitness’ aspect of improving employee productivity at work. in this article, I shall dwell on improving the ‘Mental Fitness’ facet of the same.

The area deserving greater attention:

Curiously, not as much attention and care are being taken towards ensuring a robust ‘mental fitness’ level of employees, which is as important, if not more, to achieve the same corporate objectives. A right combination of sharper mind and a healthier body will rather have a synergistic effect in this regard.

Recent data:

The January 18, 2018 article titled, “Now Is The Time For Wellbeing Programs To Focus On Mental Health,” published by the Forbes Magazine presented some interesting facts.

It wrote, employers are increasingly taking greater interest in employee wellbeing. In 2017, the average employer in the United States spent around USD 693 per employee on well-being initiatives per year. This figure is rising around USD100 per year, the author said.

However, the majority of such investment were towards physical health activities, such as installation of gym facilities on site, or giving employees fitness trackers to monitor activity levels. It was less clear, though, whether similar investment extends into mental health programs, as well.

Mental health issues at work higher than physical health conditions:

The October 2017 study titled “Thriving at work“ highlighted that the United Kingdom faces a significant mental health challenge at work. While there are more people at work with mental health conditions than ever before, 300,000 people with a long term mental health problem lose their jobs each year, and at a much higher rate than those with physical health conditions.

Another article appeared in the Indian Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine also observed that mental health problems have an impact on employers and businesses directly through negative impact on productivity and profits, as well as an increase in costs to deal with the issue. In addition, they impact employee morale adversely.

Mental health – the Indian scenario:

The World Health Organization recognizes that the impact of mental health problems in the workplace has serious consequences not only for the individual, but also for the productivity of the enterprise, including the developing countries, such as India.

For the country, the National Mental Health Survey 2015-16 also reveals that nearly 15 percent Indian adults need active intervention for one or more mental health issues and one in 20 Indians suffers from depression. Noting this ascending trend in the prevalence of mental disorders, workplace mental health is an essential need for the Indian Corporates to respond to, urgently.

Alongside, a 2016 study by Optum – a leading employee assistance program to many Corporates, with a sample size of 200,000 employees and covering over 30 large employers, unveiled a seemingly astonishing fact. It reported, as high as 46 percent of the workforce in India suffers from some form of stress. The same issue is applicable to the Government employees in India.

Intriguingly, its budgetary allocation to the National Program for Mental Health has been stagnant for the past three years. At ₹ 35 crore, the program, reportedly, received 0.07 percent of India’s 2017-18 health budget.

Mental health continues to be a taboo:

The ‘Thriving at work’ report further said: “Behind this, our analysis shows that around 15% of people at work have symptoms of an existing mental health condition.” “We found that in many workplaces, mental health is still a taboo subject and that opportunities are missed to prevent poor mental health and ensure employees who may be struggling to get the support they need. In many instances, employers simply don’t understand the crucial role they can play, or know where to go for advice and support,” the paper underscored.

As the above Forbes study said, it could also be due to the fact that a large number of employees believe their mental health problems are not affecting their work, so there was no need to tell their boss.

Focus only on merit, ignoring mental health may have a shorter life:

As we see around, many organizations, including large pharma players in India, are increasingly following different systems of recognizing merit to boost employee productivity. One of its visible manifestations gets reflected in the corporate policy of ‘pay for performance’. It fundamentally means: ‘exceed goals to earn more.’ This by all means is one of the very effective tools of not just achieving business excellence, but in fostering a sense of competition within the performers, besides good corporate governance.  In this context, a question often raised is: Does focusing only merit, sans adequate mental health, carry a shorter life for improving employee productivity?

Conclusion:

This process of recognizing merits, focuses mostly on boosting employee productivity, and very rarely on meeting their mental needs, wants, aspirations and outlook. As a result of this single minded corporate focus on professional merits alone, work-stress starts creating additional pressure, over and above the employees’ own family, social and other personal stress factors. It often leads to job burnout – slowly shifting the work productivity in the reverse gear, alongside an adverse impact on the quality of life of individuals.

There are instances when the employees resort to unwanted shortcuts, snowballing the situation, but only when these get detected. There are ample such evidences in the Indian pharma industry, as well. Several global pharma majors, such as GSK have taken some measures in this area. Nonetheless, it needs to go beyond what a large number of these companies display on their wellness initiatives for employees, in the respective websites.

I hope, this well-proven interesting link between employee productivity at work and their mental well-being, will be noted by more and more Indian companies, especially in the pharma sector. This may prompt them to look for a win-win blend between corporate excellence, employees’ merit-based performance and their fitness needs – both physical and mental. That’s, I reckon, is the minimal corporate requirement today, in this area. Once in place, it will keep evolving at a rapid pace, with the collective cerebral inputs of the respective organizations.

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.

 

An Interesting Link: Productivity At Work and Employee Fitness (In 2 Parts)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 1: Physical Fitness

Today’s work environment is much more challenging than ever before. The challenge is undoubtedly multi-factorial. Many of these are external – mostly related to increasing complex, and difficult to fathom uncertainties and surprises in the overall business environment. Nevertheless, its sizeable part keeps generating from within the respective organizations.

These emanate from a wide variety factors, such as changes at the senior management levels or in the key corporate policies of an organization. But more importantly, changing aspirations and outlook of the new generation professionals, in the midst of all complexities of life, often play a catalytic role.

Managing changes in VUCA world:

The Corporate leadership of more and more business organizations, including pharma is fast realizing a hard fact. They are discerning, if the internal challenges are addressed with a systematic short, medium and long-term approaches, it would be possible to navigate through, with a greater degree of success than otherwise, in this Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous (VUCA)) world.

Scientific evidence suggests, encouraging employee fitness in this situation with a comprehensive plan, could considerably help boosting employee productivity to effectively respond to business challenges. I shall discuss this emerging scenario in two successive articles. The Part 1 will dwell on the impact of ‘Physical Fitness’ on employee productivity, and the Part 2 will argue on the relevance of ‘Mental Fitness” in achieving the same.

Working on ‘employee engagement’, including fitness:

To successfully cruise through this tough headwind, many corporate houses are working hard on various ‘employee engagement’ initiatives, to excel in creating the best possible ‘shareholder value’. These cover various hard and soft skills imparted through regular training sessions, in tandem with actively encouraging employee fitness programs at the corporate level, seriously.

There are plenty of reasons for doing so. For example, by keeping the employees away from various non-infectious chronic (NCDs) such as hypertension, diabetes, or enabling them to manage these conditions better, through fitness initiatives, the employers derive some very tangible benefits, as well. These come, over and above offering a sense of wellness to employees – in terms of improvement of per employee productivity.

Proven benefits of fitness initiatives now visible across the world:

To achieve this goal, increasing number of corporate houses around the world of all sizes, are ensuring employee fitness by providing facilities of exercise, even in the workplace.

A Brookings Institute study, titled, ‘Exercise Increases Productivity’ found that ‘regular exercise at work helps increase employees’ happiness and overall productivity in the workplace.’ In a randomized controlled trial, researchers from the University of Georgia concluded that even low to moderate daily exercise can make employees feel more energized within a few weeks. Whereas, the effect of exercise on the mood is immediate.

Another research article, published in the American Journal of Management indicated: ‘If fitness could be increased through some type of fitness program, there would be a noticeable increase in productivity.’

Yet another research publication on the subject commented: “There are clear implications not only for employee wellbeing, but also for competitive advantage and motivation by increasing opportunities for exercising at work.”

Fitness also impacts the way one thinks:

Stating that: ‘Exercise has also been shown to elevate mood, which has serious implications for workplace performance,” the article titled “Regular Exercise Is Part of Your Job”, published by the Harvard Business Review (HBR) on October 03, 2014 discussed another interesting point.

It wrote, when we think about the value of exercise, we tend to focus on the physical benefits, such as lower blood pressure, a healthier heart, a more attractive physique. Besides this fact, there are other compelling evidence suggesting that there is another, more immediate benefit of regular exercise: its impact on the way we think.

Elaborating the point, the author said: Studies indicate that our mental firepower is directly linked to our physical regimen. And nowhere are the implications more relevant than our performance at work, providing the following cognitive benefits into an employee routine at the work place:

  • Improved concentration
  • Sharper memory
  • Faster learning
  • Prolonged mental stamina
  • Enhanced creativity
  • Lower stress

In line with the Brooking Institute study, this article also reiterates that exercise has shown to elevate mood, which has serious implications for workplace performance. On the other hand, feeling irritable is not just an inconvenience. It can directly influence the degree to which one is successful.

Even the results of the Leeds Metropolitan University study show that exercise during regular work hours may boost performance. It also found: “On days when employees visited the gym, their experience at work changed. They reported managing their time more effectively, being more productive, and having smoother interactions with their colleagues. Just as important: They went home feeling more satisfied at the end of the day.”

The most common barrier:

What prevents us from exercising more often? The most common answer to this important question would probably be: ‘I don’t have the time.’ This answer could well be quite legitimate too. However, it also means that fitness programs still assume a low priority to many, despite its scientifically proven work and personal benefits, as the studies indicate.

Conclusion:

Various research studies, including the HBR article, have concluded that the cognitive benefits of exercise resulting significant improvement in employee productivity, can’t be wished away, any longer.  Which is why the research studies establishing the importance of employee fitness to boost their productivity in the workplace, are so compelling.

There is hardly any scope of doubt now that: “Exercise enables us to soak in more information, work more efficiently, and be more productive.”

This scientifically proven narrative now deserves to be practiced at a much wider scale by Indian business organizations. As an effective tool to boost employee productivity, they may wish to increasingly encourage fitness programs at the workplace. Not very strange, though, corporate physical fitness centers – on-site or outsourced, are not too common, just yet, perhaps more within the Indian pharma industry.

When actively encouraged by, particularly the pharma leadership in India, a significant value addition may take place on their ongoing initiatives for improving the much-sought after employee productivity in the workplace, in a win-win way.

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.

Creating A ‘Virtuous Cycle’ Through Patient Reach and Care

Posted on by
Reply

As many would know, in the strategic marketing process of any product including patented and generic drugs crafty product differentiation plays a critical role.

This strategic process of creating a competitive edge with unique product differentials is necessary. It helps perceiving a product more attractive to the target audience, against its competitors. When done effectively, the product fetches a greater share of mind for usage, achieving higher levels of top of mind recall, and, of course, a price premium.

In pharma, the traditional brand differentiation revolves around delivering cutting-edge values, skimming through the intrinsic product features and benefits. In India, which is predominantly a branded generic market, the local pharma marketers almost routinely keep trying to toe this line.

As I said before, some of them often vehemently argue in favor of maintaining a status quo in this area. It could probably be due to professional discomfort in venturing out of their respective comfort zones.

In the current pharma marketing environment, especially in India, finding the right answer to a not-so-easy-to-reply question may trigger a disruptive change in the traditional, or virtually routine marketing practices. This is widely considered a prevailing normal of date, and generally includes ‘features and benefits oriented product differentiation.’

In this article, I shall dwell on this important area, picking a thread from this simple, but a difficult-to-answer question.

The question:

This question goes like this: ‘How does a pharma marketer conceptualize product features and benefits oriented differential values, when there are virtually no clinically significant differentials between the competing products?’ There would possibly be no credible answers, justifying this practice.

Are branded generic sales mostly driven by contentious factors?

This query is more relevant in a branded generic market, such as India. Yet, pharma marketers keep following routinely the traditional methods in this area. As many say, actual product sales are driven by mostly by those critical factors, which are contentious and are being fiercely debated within the country, even today.

Pharma needs more extrinsic differentiation rather than intrinsic:

In the midst of an evolving new value expectation of pharma consumers, the market access strategy of the industry marketers must also evolve, keeping at least a step ahead of the former. This would help in delighting the customers, by offering them something meaningful, well before they start expecting the same. Thus, it makes me believe, a time has come to make the extrinsic factors, such as patient experience or delight, the center piece of product differentiation, weaving around its intrinsic qualities.

Many global companies have already started acting in this area – creating a whole new experience of care and relief for the patients, with new marketing models delivering differential product values to the target groups. Similar steps can successfully be taken even where there are no clinically significant differentials between the competing products.

Greater participation of consumers in treatment choices:

The information revolution in the world, mainly empowered by the Internet-based platforms – social or otherwise, is enabling many consumers to be partners in the disease treatment choices along with the doctors. In India too, it has started happening – slowly, but surely.

Those consumers, both in urban and mostly in the rural India, who won’t have any direct access to such information, ‘word of mouth’ enlightenment received from others would have a somewhat compensatory effect. Thus, the patients and their near and dear ones will have multiple treatment choices to choose from. In my view, this situation would gain a critical mass – much faster than what the current trend suggests. There won’t be any surprises, if this change assumes a snowballing effect, with modern technology being the key catalyst.

The current attitude could be counterproductive:

In this dynamic situation, any arrogance or ignorance of pharma marketers nurturing a seemingly ‘perennial’ conviction that ‘Indian pharma market and the patients are different’, could indeed be grossly counterproductive. This group of people seems to form a majority, today.

However, it is great to notice that some young Indian pharma professionals with an agile mindset and cerebral power, are thinking differently. They are not just keenly observing the ‘dots’, but also capturing, connecting and mapping the changing needs of the patients.

Their fingers are always on the pulse – concentrating more on strategizing extrinsic differentiation of products rather than remaining in the cocoon of the intrinsic ones. This quest to create an unchallenged and difficult to match market-space, will be essential in gaining the competitive cutting edge, as we move on.

Creating a virtuous cycle:

The focus of a pharma player in creating an extrinsic product differential edge, in pursuit of delivering the value of unique consumer experience, would in turn help enhancing the company reputation. This would, consequently, add value in creating an extrinsic product differential edge – thus, completing a ‘Virtuous Cycle’. It is generally caused by ‘complex chains of events that reinforce themselves through a feedback loop.’

A study on the ‘Impact of Corporate Reputation on Brand Differentiation’, has also established the ‘influence of company reputation, or what is often referred to as corporate reputation on branding strategy and producing intangible asset for different industries…’ This study is considered a pioneering attempt to measure the impact of corporate reputation on brand differentiation strategy.

Conclusion:

Today, especially in the marketing process of branded generic drugs, Indian marketers keep following a system that creates a sequence of reciprocal cause and effect, in which different elements of this overall activity intensify and aggravate each other, leading inexorably to a worsening of the situation. The Oxford dictionary defines this situation as a ‘Vicious Cycle.’

It’s not quite easy to come out of it, extricating the involved players from caustic remarks and allegations of indulging into contentious sales activities, if not blatant ‘marketing malpractices’. Nevertheless, breaking this mold is a ‘must do’ requirement, as many industry watchers believe.

This is because, if one wants to build a company for sustainable business excellence, it has to follow the principles of a ‘Virtuous Cycle’. Otherwise, it could threaten the very survival of the business, as we have witnessed several such instances in India, involving pharma companies. Several global pharma players are now trying hard to create a ‘Virtuous Cycle’, through well-researched strategic initiatives of patient reach and care.

To face this challenge of change squarely, Indian pharma marketers may also wish to focus on extrinsic differentiation of products, rather than intrinsic ones, as is mostly being done today, routinely. This course correction, I reckon, would play a ‘make or mar’ role in the pharma business, eventually. The passion to create a relatively unchallenged and difficult to match market space around patients, will be essential in gaining the requisite competitive advantage – giving shape to the much desired ‘Virtuous cycle’, as we move on.

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.

‘Rigged’ Payment System Limits Biosimilar Access

Posted on by
Reply

As often discussed, market entry of biosimilars, in general, brings a new hope not just for many patients, but also to biosimilar drug manufacturers – planning to get marketing approvals of these drugs in the United States, the El Dorado of global pharma industry.

Stakeholder expectations keep increasing manifold as biosimilars offer cheaper treatment options with biologic drugs in many life-threatening and rare diseases. However, biosimilars still remain an unfulfilled promise.

The January 2018 paper by Trinity Partners on “The State of US Biosimilars Market Access” in the largest drug market of the world makes an important observation in this regard. It says, the promise of biosimilars offering cost-saving competition in the lucrative US biologic market, remains largely unfulfilled.

As on date, adoption of biosimilars has been hindered by lack of market access due to complex contracting dynamics, besides regulatory and legal uncertainty, and a general lack of clinical comfort with biosimilars.

Consequently, current state of biosimilar acceptance and access appear too insignificant. More so, as compared to traditional small molecule generic markets where their use is fueled by automatic substitution and payer formularies, over higher priced branded reference drugs.

It would not have been difficult, especially for the innovative biologic drug makers to brush this important study aside, had the US-FDA Commissioner – Scott Gottlieb would not have voiced what he did in March this year.

With this perspective, I shall discuss in this article, how access to biosimilar drugs are getting limited. In doing so, I shall begin with what the US-FDA Commissioner has recently highlighted in this area.

Yet another barrier:

As reported by Bloomberg on March 07, 2018, the US-FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb unambiguously expressed that biologic drug manufacturers enter into exclusive arrangements with Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) and insurers, who agree to cover only the old brands in return for rebates or discounts. This “rigged” payment scheme might quite literally scare the biosimilar competition out of the market altogether, he articulated, categorically.

US-FDA Commissioner delivered this speech at the National Health Policy Conference for America’s Health Insurance Plans. During this deliberation, Gottlieb criticized some unwanted and avoidable practices that stifle biosimilar development.

He observed, of the 9 approved biosimilars in the US, only 3 could be launched market. In many instances, patent litigation is the reason for such delay in launch, post FDA approval. Connecting the dots, the Commissioner observed, even after being in the market, biosimilars continue facing more uncertainty due to a ‘rigged payment scheme.’

Started with a great promise:

It is worth noting, till 2010 no regulatory pathway for marketing approval of biosimilars was in place in the world’s largest pharma market – the United States. Hence, despite biosimilar drugs being a treatment option in many countries over the last two decades, the first biosimilar was launched in the US, following this pathway, only in 2015. It was Zarxio ((Filgrastim-sndz) of Novartis – indicated for the treatment of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

Since then, US-FDA has approved nine biosimilars. Ironically biosimilar market size still remains small and much below the general expectations. Most biosimilar manufacturers are navigating through multiple tough hurdles for market launch of this relatively new genre of complex drugs.

Navigating through tough hurdles:

There are tough hurdles to navigate through, while launching biosimilars, especially in the US. Some of which are as follows:

Protracted litigations: The development and launch of most biosimilars get stuck in the multiple patent web-lock, created around original biologic molecules, leading to long drawn expensive litigations.

Pricing: Following small molecule generic drugs, most payers and consumers expect biosimilar pricing too will be no different. However, in practice, most biosimilars are priced just around 15 percent to 20 percent less than original biologics.

Interchangeability: Lack of interchangeability among presently approved biosimilars in the US limits payers’ and consumer choice for a shift from the reference biologic drugs to suitable biosimilars. This virtually restricts the use of biosimilars mostly to such drug-naïve patients.

Confidence: For various reasons, the confidence and familiarity of both physicians and the consumers on biosimilars remain suboptimal. Whether relatively cheaper biosimilars can be used in the same indications as the reference biologic to the new patients – as an alternative choice, is still not clear to many of them. This situation calls for increasing awareness programs involving all stakeholders.

Manufacturing: The manufacturing process of large molecule biosimilars is quite costly as compared to small molecule generic drugs. Hence, these are unlikely to follow a similar pricing pattern, attracting as high a discount as around 80 percent, compared to original branded drugs.

Some of these barriers I have discussed in my article, titled ‘Improving Patient Access To Biosimilar Drugs: Two Key Barriers’, published in this blog on July 31, 2017.

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, drug manufacturers continue to see tremendous opportunity in biosimilars. The interest is heating up, as about six of the top 10 biologic drugs are expected to go off-patent in the US by 2019.

Despite all this, it is generally believed, the prevailing situation will change even in the US. The regulator is expected to facilitate smoother market entry of biosimilars, facing much less obstacles on the way. As many strongly believe, these are possibly an outcome of intense industry lobbying, with the high-level policy makers.  Many of these hurdles can be removed by the regulators, themselves, including drug interchangeability.

The US-FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb has already said in a meeting on March 07, 2018, the FDA will start educating doctors and patients to minimize clinical and other concerns related to biosimilars. Therefore, going forward, greater competition in the biosimilar space is expected to increase the long-awaited price differential, as compared to reference biologic.

With greater support from the regulators, biosimilars still show a unique promise of greater acceptance and access to patients – occasionally ‘Rigged’ maneuvers by the vested interests notwithstanding.

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.

‘Made-to-Measure’ Marketing for ‘Made-to-Measure’ Medicines

Posted on by
Reply

We have entered into a new era of innovation in medical science where ‘one size fits all’ type of treatment is making a sizeable space for a new ‘made-to-measure’ variety of the same. Such medicines are being developed particularly for life-threatening and rare diseases, where individual genetic differences in patients play a key role in the choice of therapy.

The marketers of such drugs, at the same time, will need to make sure that the right sets of messages are delivered to the right person, in the right way and at the right time, for brand success. This isn’t a piece of cake, as it will be akin to finding out a needle from a haystack. It would call for craftily ferreting out from an enormous database, both the patients’ and the prescribers detail profile virtually in each stage of the treatment process.

Such information would form the bedrock for effective brand value creation and its delivery, to achieve best possible business results and also patient outcomes. Thus, ‘made-to-measure’ marketing would be a whole new ball game for many pharma marketers – a  completely different situation that, very often, they know little about.

In this article, I shall dwell on this subject. Let me begin with a brief description of the emerging ‘made-to-measure’ variety of treatments.

‘Made-to-measure’ treatment:

There are many serious and life-threatening disease conditions where ‘One Size Fits All’ sort of treatment approach doesn’t work too well. One such dreaded disease is cancer. Conventionally, following standard treatment guidelines, doctors generally opt for similar treatment for patients suffering from the same type and stage of cancer. Interestingly, it has been conclusively established over a period of time that this approach often yields different outcomes to different patients.

With the progress of genetic science, the researchers have unraveled this mystery from the genetic difference of patients. This understanding heralded the dawn of a new era of targeted or ‘made-to-measure’ drug therapies. These are called “personalized medicine” or “precision medicine”. According to the National Research Council, “personalized medicine” is an older term with a meaning similar to “precision medicine.”

Personalized medicines:

According to the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), understanding a patient’s genetic makeup and ascertaining how certain gene changes during cancerous tumor growth, doctors can now choose more effective treatment options for each patient. In other words, based on genetic test results, oncologists can now opt for a customize treatment, based on each patient’s specific needs. Such drugs can block or turn off the signals that tell malignant cells to grow and divide, keep cells from living longer than normal, or kill the cancer cells altogether.

Moreover, by performing genetic tests both on the cancer and normal cells, doctors can also:

  • Find out the chances of a person developing cancer and selecting the screening strategies to lower the risk
  • Match patients with treatments that are likely to be more effective and cause fewer side effects
  • Predict the risk of recurrence, which means the return of cancer

The new era began in 1998:

The era of ‘personalized medicine’ for cancer, in all practical purposes, commenced in 1998, when the US-FDA approved the targeted therapy, Herceptin (trastuzumab). Breast cancer patients having high levels of a biomarker, known as “HER-2,” are more likely to be susceptible to this drug.

Since then, the development of targeted therapies has grown rapidly. As reported by the American Journal of Managed Care (AJMC), published on January 31, 2018, one in every 4 drugs approved by the US-FDA over the past 4 years was a personalized medicine, and the agency approved a record-breaking 16 personalized therapy in 2017. The same year, US-FDA also approved the first biosimilar of a personalized medicine - trastuzumab-dkst (Ogivri) for HER-2-positive breast cancer patients. This biosimilar was developed with Herceptin as its reference.

The February 2018 report of Research and Markets titled, ‘Personalized Medicine – Scientific and Commercial Aspects’ says, the aim of ‘personalized medicine’ is to match the right drug to the right patient and, in some cases, even to design the appropriate treatment for a patient according to his/her genotype. I deliberated on genotype-based treatment in my article titled, ‘A Disruptive Innovation to Fight and Cure Intractable Diseases’, published in this blog on October 30, 2017.

At this point, let me hasten to add that the development of personalized medicine raises some ethical issues, as well. Currently, this debate is mostly limited to the area of genetic testing.

Personalized dosage:

An article published on March 23, 2015 in the ‘FDA Voice’ of the US-FDA states, since the 1990s, the agency is also working on personalized drug dosing. This is because individuals differ in how they eliminate a drug. Some eliminate it much more slowly than most other people, and thus are susceptible to overdosing, while others eliminate it much faster, and may not get the desired therapeutic effect. There are biomarkers to identify people who may have these unusual results. Personalized drug dosing makes sure that drug efficacy for such patients are not compromised, or they are not at high risk of any severe side effects.

Marketing ‘personalized medicine’ a whole new ball game:

All this vindicates that ‘personalized medicine’ is not just a flash in the pan. With each passing year, it’s moving ahead at a brisk pace. In this emerging scenario, what happens to marketing of these drugs? Will the marketing of ‘personalized medicine’ remain just the same as the conventional one, or it warrants radically different cerebral inputs?

The opportunities for personalization in pharma marketing are immense. ‘Personalized medicines’ offer a greater scope in leveraging its potential that is yet to be fathomed, meaningfully. Broadly, this will mean targeting customers or potential consumers even at the individual level, to add greater differential value.

This, in turn, will involve making the marketing content, the message format and choosing the effective value delivery platforms, virtually ‘made-to-measure’ for the target audience. Marketing interaction of this ilk, has proven to offer a cutting-edge experience to the target groups with greater outcomes, in tandem, yielding superior financial results to the concerned pharma players.

Recent reports:

On December 18, 2017, Cambridge BioMarketing – one of the world’s leading rare disease agency highlighted, as personalized medicine continues to take hold, it will be more important than ever for healthcare companies to incorporate the ‘hyperpersonalized’ experience in marketing and communications. Patients’ voice has already started becoming more important than ever before, in various facets of pharma business. In 2018, one may expect to witness more pharma companies tapping the experts who can help explain the life-changing benefits of a treatment for the patient, effectively – the report predicted.

Moving forward, patients embarking on new treatments will be better empowered to take charge of their well-being. Physicians and nurses will also be better connected to their patients, along with other care providers, with the support of enhanced digital connections and mobile apps. Interestingly, one can find it happening in several developed countries, especially, in areas like rare diseases, where ‘personalized medicines’ will be used more – underscored this agency.

On January 22, 2018, quoting the same Cambridge BioMarketing, FiercePharma also reported, more ‘personalized medicines’ also mean more ‘personalized marketing’ – and the ‘hyperpersonalization’ trend goes to extremes. Crunching data gathered from multiple sources, such drug marketers need to identify small groups that could be receptive to specific messaging. Advanced data and analytics, would facilitate the marketers to whittle down their targets and tailor messages to consumer audiences, sometimes as small as one person – the report asserted.

Conclusion:

As the February 2018 report of ‘Research and Markets’ highlights, increase in efficacy and safety of treatment by individualizing it, has benefitted in financial terms too. Available information indicates that ‘personalized medicine’ will ultimately be cost-effective in healthcare systems. This would also eliminate the need for various assumptions in the process of diagnosing a disease.

Thus, conventional pharma marketing based on the mostly segmentation strategy used for blockbuster molecules may not work for a ‘personalized medicine’. Instead, ‘personalized marketing, focused on smaller and exclusive markets – identified based on robust research and analytical data, will be the name of the new game for business excellence in this specialized area.

Thus, I reckon, as we move ahead, ‘made-to-measure’ marketing will no doubt be one of the key success requirements to make ‘made-to-measure’ medicines’ – a money spinner.

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.

Why Branded Generics Promise High Quality For Patients?

Posted on by
Reply

Why most branded generic drugs don’t carry any stigma of quality, even when these are manufactured by small companies? The corollary to it is, why non-branded generics always carry a general stigma of inferior quality, even when produced by large Indian pharma companies?

While pondering over the answers to these questions, several other related facts also float at the top of mind, simultaneously, such as:

1. Just as many non-branded generics don’t go through the regular drug quality scrutiny of the regulators, branded generics are no different in this regard.

2. A large number of both branded and non-branded generics gets manufacturing approval by various State Drug Authorities.

3. The process of regulatory approval is exactly the same for both branded and non-branded generics. Even for branded generics regulatory approvals come only in the generic names and not with the brand names.

4. One can find hundreds of varieties of both branded and non-branded generics of the same molecules or of similar fixed dose combinations in the market.

5. Reports of substandard drugs of both non-branded and branded generics are also not significantly different.

6. Legal measures of reasonably stringent punishment in the country are no different between branded and non-branded generics.

This list is not exhaustive. Nevertheless, in this scenario, it is intriguing to fathom the reason of so much of contempt for non-branded generics within the industry, supported by a section of the media. This disgust gets invariably well-displayed as and when any serious discussion revolves around non-branded cheaper generic drug prescriptions in India.

Is it just a perception or based on solid facts?

This is a million-dollar question, but the optics is interesting. This also gets reflected in the recent media report on February 26, 2018. It writes, ‘The central government’s National Health Protection Scheme (NHPS) is going to put all of its focus on quality generic medicines, and not just the branded generic medicines, said Union Chemical and Fertilizer Minister Ananth Kumar while addressing a closed-door session with chief executives (CEOs) of pharmaceutical companies in Bengaluru on February 15.”

Curiously, in his statement the Minister also used the term ‘Quality’ only against non-branded generics and not against branded generics. Does it mean anything? If it does, is that just a perception or based on solid facts?

In this article, I shall try to assess why is this generally negative perception against cheaper non-branded generics gaining strength among many of us?

A general impression:  

An often-repeated fascinating argument is, branding of a generic drug is important as it will ensure high product quality. This reasoning persists, regardless of the fact that the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) often makes public announcements to the contrary, as happened even recently.

Risks of NSQ drugs don’t lie solely on non-branded generics:

According to the ‘National Drug Survey, 2014-16’, conducted in association with the National Institute of Biologicals, out of the 47,012 samples tested from the country, 13 samples (0.0245 percent) were ‘Spurious’ and 1,850 samples (3.16 percent) were found ‘Not of Standard Quality (NSQ)’.

The data on 1,850 NSQ samples showed that these were from 569 manufacturing units. Of these, 10 percent of manufacturing units were responsible for about 50 percent of NSQ samples. Further, one third of total NSQ samples were from 22 manufacturing units.

Further, quoting the survey carried out through the National Institute of Biologicals, a September 04, 2017 media report also articulated: ‘During its recent survey, the drug regulator found well-known drug manufacturers failing quality tests. In the survey, samples tested from top drug companies were found not to be of standard quality.’

The names of some of these large drug manufacturers in India, including the multinationals, along with their smaller counterparts, appeared in the Public Notice of July 21, 2017 of the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) of India. Thus, the risks of NSQ medicines can’t possibly be attributed solely to the small time non-branded generic drug manufacturers. This public notice is expected to draw attention of many stakeholders.

More facts:

On April 22, 2017, the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) reported that popular branded drugs like D-Cold Total, Cetrizine, Combiflam, Panza-40 tablets, Ibuprofen, and antibiotics with ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin, Amoxycillin, Ciprofloxacin have tested sub-standard. Before this, media reports of July 8, 2016 highlighted, “The DCGI has again found Sanofi’s popular painkiller drug, Combiflam, of sub-standard quality, in its latest test last month. It had found the same defect in the medicine in February and April, too.’

Conclusion:

Considering these facts, it is difficult to comprehend why branded generic drugs, irrespective of who manufacturers, will be of high quality perceptually – always. Conversely, non-branded generic drugs, even when manufactured by a reputed manufacturer, say for example – Cipla, are perceptually no good for patients, in terms of quality standard.

Nevertheless, the hard facts indicate, quality is a general issue both for branded and non-branded generic drugs in India, and not particularly for the later one.

This brings me back to where I started from: Do Branded Generics Promise High Quality for Patients? To find the right answer to this question, one should look at the scientific data on the same – sans any perception. Otherwise, it becomes ‘your view’ versus ‘my view’ sort of a mindless, though a highly passionate debate.

I shall refrain from being judgmental in this area. The readers may wish to ponder over it, seriously, and arrive at a well-considered inference on the very basis of this discourse – from the patients’ perspective.

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.

NHPS: “One Nation, One Scheme is Enticing”, But Will It Work?

Posted on by
Reply

Yet another slogan: “One nation – One Universal Health Coverage (UHC)” would indeed be enticing for many, including India.

Nevertheless, that’s just a hope. Let’s now try to get a message out of what has been recently happening around this area through some reality checks.   The reality is, during post union budget (2018-19) television discussions on the ‘National Health Protection Scheme NHPS’, various experts very enthusiastically created a general impression that the scheme is a game changer for India. Many of us also felt that India is moving fast towards a viable UHC in the country!

As a consequence of which, it was widely expected that State Governments, too, will make necessary provision in their respective health budgets towards this ambitious insurance-based healthcare project. This specific step is absolutely essential, as the State Governments are supposed to contribute 40 percent towards NHPS.

Is it happening that way?

Intriguingly, on March 9, 2018, when Maharashtra State budget was announced, one witnessed a different reality altogether on the ground. In its 2018-19 budget, the Maharashtra Government, reportedly, ‘slashed its budget allocation for the health insurance scheme for the poor by over 50 percent.’

The Finance Minister of Maharashtra announced an allocation of ₹576 crore for the ‘Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Jan Aarogya Abhiyan’ in 2018-19 as against the last year’s budget outlay of ₹1,316 crore for the same area.

Keeping this latest development just as an example, in this article I shall explore some of the recent developments on the much talked about NHPS. Before doing that, let me give a perspective on the NHPS.

NHPS: not a new promise:

Rekindling the perennial hope on UHC in India, ‘National Health Protection Scheme NHPS’ was first announced by the incumbent Government in its 2016 budget, but the scheme didn’t take off. In its first avatar NHPS offered ₹100,000 insurance cover, with a top-up of ₹30,000 for senior citizens.

“It couldn’t get implemented, but that scheme is now subsumed by this current scheme,” reportedly, justified Manoj Jhalani, Additional Secretary in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, who has been given additional charge and designated as Mission Director of Ayushman Bharat, currently.

There isn’t any doubt that NHPS has been recast in the Union Budget Proposal of 2018-19, with a slight modification in naming it to ‘Ayushman Bharat—the National Health Protection Scheme (AB-NHPS)’. The modified scheme is also termed by many as “Modicare”, probably following ‘Obamacare’ in the United States. The Union Finance Minister of India in his Budget speech also termed this scheme as ‘the world’s largest government funded healthcare program.’

A recast of insurance-based public health coverage:

As a part of ‘Ayushman Bharat Program’, the scheme will now provide health insurance cover of up to ₹500,000 to 100 million poor and vulnerable families. Its benefits are now expected to reach 500 million individuals – 40 percent of India’s population, raising health insurance cover by up to 17 times from the existing Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY) that pegs the health coverage at ₹30,000 per year.

Just to give a flavor of the past, the National Family Health Survey-4 (2015-16) indicates that in India only 28.7 percent families have, at least, one person covered by a health insurance policy.

In the health insurance coverage based NHPS, the center and states will split financing the scheme in a 60:40 ratio. However, it is still not clear how would they do it. Neither is it known how the NHPS will fit in with the existing RSBY or various already existing state level schemes.

Apprehension expressed by some States:

Several other Indian States, such as Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, West Bengal and Rajasthan already have a similar health protection scheme in place. Probably because of this reason some of these states, such as West Bengal and Karnataka, reportedly, have raised doubts about whether they will actually join the scheme.

On the other hand, health officials from  Telangana, Tamil Nadu and Kerala intend to seek clarifications from the Centre on various aspects of the plans. As I mentioned before, this is mostly because all States will require to contribute 40 percent of total expenses towards funding the ‘Ayushman Bharat—the National Health Protection Scheme (AB-NHPS).’

A fresh evaluation: Experts don’t rate public health insurance schemes high:

Interestingly, some fresh apprehensions on the effectiveness of insurance-based health coverage continues to come up. One such is as follows:

“The current approach of National Health Mission – whereby states must pre-commit to expenditure allocations across 2,000 budget lines with no real flexibility to subsequently move expenditures between different line items – will render NHPS ineffective.”

This apprehension has been raised by none other than Dr. Arvind Panagariya, currently Professor of Economics at Columbia University and the Vice Chairman of the Government of India’s think-tank NITI Aayog, between January 2015 and August 2017. This article, titled “It’s all in the design: Ayushman Bharat can be transformational if the governance of public healthcare is altered”, was published in the Times of India on March 07, 2018.

Dr. Panagariya further observed: “For the poorest of the poor to seek private hospital care speaks volumes for their lack of confidence in the public healthcare system. Studies by experts do not give high marks to existing insurance schemes either.”

Some key observations:

In his above recent article, Dr. Arvind Panagariya made some key observations that include some of the following:

  • A 2017 study of the Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY), published in the journal Social Science and Medicine, concludes, “Overall, the results [of our study] suggest that RSBY has been ineffective in reducing the burden of out-of-pocket spending on poor households.”
  • In 2014-15, private hospitals treated 58 percent of in-patient cases in rural areas. Even among the poorest 20 percent rural households, 42.5 percent of the patients went to private hospitals for in-patient treatment.
  • Resource shortage has resulted in less than adequate infrastructure and personnel in the public health facilities. Consequently, in 2014-15, a mere 28 percent of those needing outpatient care came to the public health facilities. A hefty 72 percent of patients went to private providers.
  • Considering that the private providers are predominantly unqualified individuals, often having no more than a high school education and no formal medical education, such disproportionate reliance on them is indicative of a serious failure at the public health facilities, especially in rural India.
  • Design and implementation challenges facing NHPS are even greater. Hospitals will have an inherent interest in pushing patients towards more expensive procedures or towards procedures not even required. Any lack of clarity in delineating the included and excluded procedures will become a source of abuse.
  • Superior outcomes would require a fundamental change in governance whereby performers are rewarded, and non-performers are punished. The story on secondary and tertiary care is not especially different.

In my view, these observations are worth taking note of, urgently, and more importantly, by learning from the past, avoiding similar mistakes getting repeated. Meaningful implementation of NHPS on the ground should be a top priority, especially when around 7 percent of the country’s population gets pushed below the poverty line, every year, due to high out of pocket health expenditure.

I also discussed the subject in this Blog on February 05, 2018. The article was titled “Union Budget 2018: The ‘WOW’ Moment for Indian Healthcare?”

Conclusion:

Any meaningful initiative on public healthcare for all, will be wholeheartedly welcomed in India, just as many other announcements made earlier by various Governments over a period of time. AB-NHPS – although announced in the very last year of the incumbents Government’s first 5-year term, has attracted similar interest. No less enthusiasm was displayed by the stakeholders, when the NHPS was first announced in the 2016 Union Budget of India.

The good news is, in the midst of all this, on March 06, 2018, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has, reportedly, reviewed the preparedness for the launch of AB-NHPS.’ However, details of the same are not known to many, just yet.

That said, any type of insurance-based public health coverage, spanning across the length and the breadth of India, without access to well-equipped and well-staffed health facilities, currently poses a serious handicap for the nation. It may be a legacy factor, but nothing significant happened in the last four years, either. This is regardless of around 70 percent of the country’s population still live in rural India, with a sizeable majority denied of access to affordable health care, as up till now.

Let me come back to the basic question: ‘One Nation, One Scheme, though, is enticing, but will it work?’ I reckon, unlike, 2016, if NHPS is effectively implemented urgently, together with ‘Ayushman Bharat’ program in its entirety, as desired, things could possibly change for the better, in a medium to long term time frame.

However, it appears, a workable game plan of AB-NHPS is still unclear to many, including a large number of State Governments who are supposed to be the key implementers of NHPS. In this scenario, would AB-NHPS fetch any palpable near-term dividend to the target citizens, at least in 2018 or even in 2019?

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.

 

Providing Unique Patient Experience – A New Brand Differentiator

Posted on by
Reply

“Pharma industry, including the patients in India are so different from other countries. Thus, any strategic shift from conventional pharma brand marketing approach – going beyond doctors, won’t be necessary.”

The above mindset is interesting and may well hold good in a static business environment. But, will it remain so when ‘information enabled’ consumer behavior is fast-changing?

“Shall cross the bridge when we come to it” – is another common viewpoint of pharma marketers.

Many might have also noted that such outlooks are not of just a few industry greenhorns. A wide spectrum of, mostly industry-inbred marketers – including some die-hard trainers too, subscribe to it – very strongly.

Consequently, the age-old pharma marketing mold remains intact. Not much effort is seen around to reap a rich harvest out of the new challenge of change, proactively. The Juggernaut keeps moving, unhindered, despite several storm signals.

Against this backdrop, let me discuss some recent well-researched studies in the related field. This is basically to understand how some global pharma companies are taking note of the new expectations of patients and taking pragmatic and proactive measures to create a unique ‘patient experience’ with their drugs.

Simultaneously, I shall try to explore briefly how these drug companies are shaping themselves up to derive the first-mover advantage, honing a cutting edge in the market place. This is quite unlike what we generally experience in India.

As I look around:

When I look around with a modest data mining, I get increasingly convinced that the quality of mind of pharma marketers in India needs to undergo a significant change in the forthcoming years. This is because, slowly but surely, value creation to provide unique ‘patient experience’ in a disease treatment process, will become a critical differentiator in the pharma marketing ball game. Taking prime mover advantage, by shaping up the change proactively for excellence, and not by following the process reactively for survival, would separate the men from the boys in India, as well.

Patient experience – a key differentiator:

A recent report titled, “2017 Digital Trends in Healthcare and Pharma”, was published by Econsultancy in association with Adobe. This study is based on a sample of 497 respondents working in the healthcare and pharma sector who were among more than 14,000 digital marketing and eCommerce professionals from all sectors. The participants were from countries across EMEA, North America and Asia Pacific, including India.

Regarding the emerging scenario, the paper focuses mainly on the following areas:

  • Pharma companies will sharpen focus on the customer experience to differentiate themselves from their competitors.
  • ‘The internet of things (IoT)’ – the rapidly growing Internet based network of interconnected everyday use computing devices that are able to exchange data using embedded sensors, has opened new vistas of opportunity in the pharma business. Drug players consider it as the most exciting prospect for 2020.
  • Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR) have started filling critical gaps in pharma and healthcare technologies and systems. Their uses now range from training doctors in operating techniques to gamifying patient treatment plans. Over 26 percent of respondents in the study see the potential in VR and AR as the most exciting prospect for 2020.

Commensurate digital transformation of pharma industry is, therefore, essential.

Prompts a shift from marketing drugs to marketing outcomes:

The above study also well underscores a major shift – from ‘marketing drugs and treatments’ – to ‘marketing outcome-based approaches and tools’, both for prevention and treatment of illnesses. This shift has already begun, though many Indian pharma marketers prefer clinging on to their belief – ‘Indian pharma market and the patients are different.’

If it still continues, there could possibly be a significant business impact in the longer-term future.

Global companies have sensed this change:

Realizing that providing a unique experience to patients during the treatment process will be a key differentiator, some global companies have already started acting. In this article I shall highlight only one recent example that was reported in March 01, 2018.

Reuters in an article on that day titled, “Big pharma, big data: why drugmakers want your health records,” reported this new trend. It wrote, pharma players are now racing to scoop up patient health records and strike deals with technology companies as big data analytics start to unlock a trove of information about how medicines perform in the real world. This is critical, I reckon, to provide a unique treatment experience to the patients.

A recent example:

Vindicating the point that with effective leverage of this powerful tool, drug manufacturers can offer unique value of their medicines to patients, on February 15, 2018, by a Media Release, Roche announced, it will ‘acquire Flatiron Health to accelerate industry-wide development and delivery of breakthrough medicines for patients with cancer.’ Roche acquired Flatiron Health for USD 1.9 billion.

New York based Flatiron Health – a privately held healthcare technology and services company is a market leader in oncology-specific electronic health record (EHR) software, besides the curation and development of real-world evidence for cancer research.

“There’s an opportunity for us to have a strategic advantage by bringing together diagnostics and pharma with the data management. This triangle is almost impossible for anybody else to copy,” said Roche’s Chief Executive Severin Schwan, as reported in a December interview. He also believes, “data is the next frontier for drugmakers.”

Conclusion:

Several global pharma companies have now recognized that providing unique patient experience will ultimately be one of the key differentiators in the pharma marketing ballgame.

Alongside, especially in many developed countries, the drug price regulators are focusing more on outcomes-based treatment. Health insurance companies too, have started looking for ‘value-based pricing,’ even for innovative patented medicines.

Accordingly, going beyond the product marketing, many drug companies plan to focus more on outcomes-based marketing. In tandem, they are trying to give shape to a new form of patient expectation in the disease prevention and treatment value chain, together with managing patient expectations.

Such initiatives necessitate increasing use advanced data analytics by the pharma marketers to track overall ‘patient experience’ – against various parameters of a drug’s effectiveness, safety and side-effects. This would also help immensely in the customized content development for ‘outcomes-based marketing’ with a win-win intent.

Providing unique ‘patient experience’ is emerging as a new normal and a critical brand differentiator in the global marketing arena. It will, therefore, be interesting to track how long the current belief – ‘Pharma industry and the patients in India are so different from other countries’, can hold its root on the ground, firmly. Or perhaps will continue till it becomes a necessity for the very survival of the 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.