Category Archives: Pharma

What Pays More: Creating ‘Innovative ‘Customer Experience’ Or ‘Innovative Drugs’?

Posted on by
Reply

More innovative a drug is, the better is its business success rate. This was the general perception of around 92 percent pharma professionals in the past three years. Whereas the fact is: ‘Having the best product doesn’t guarantee sales anymore’. This was established by a research study of the ‘Bain & Company’ - covering multiple therapeutic areas, and was published on October 14, 2019.

It showed, when physicians prescribe a drug – its efficacy, safety and side-effect profile initially account for only 50 percent to 60 percent of the physician’s choice, with a declining trend over time. Interestingly, the other 40 percent to 50 percent of it, is based on a range of ‘physician and patient experience factors’, which pharma players need to target in innovative ways to differentiate their brands.

Many pharma companies are now experiencing the harsh reality that more innovative drugs, backed by traditional sales and marketing support are not yielding desirable financial returns. Head scratching has already started among astute pharma professionals to understand its reason for remedial measures. Thus, the number of executives who agreed with the above ‘Bain & Co’ study that: ‘Having the best product doesn’t guarantee sales anymore,’ increased to almost fourfold – from 8 percent to 28 percent in the next three years.

Thus, in this article, I shall explore whether innovation in creating a ‘unique patient experience’ during a disease treatment process, is as important, if not more than a ‘new drug innovation’. Curiously, high failure rate of most pharma players to innovate in this area, isn’t discussed as much as high failure rates in the development of innovative new drugs.

‘Customer service’ innovation – high failure rate – falling short of expectations:

Again, another article - ‘How Agile Is Powering Healthcare Innovation,’ published by ‘Bain & Company’ on June 20, 2019, brought out some interesting points related to this area. Let me quote a few of which as follows:

  • 65 percent of ‘customer-service innovation’ fall short of expectations of the target group.
  • The number of health care executives recognizing the need to respond quickly to changing customer-needs, has increased from 38 percent in the past three years to 60 percent for the next 3 years. But, most of them ‘lack the methodology, and even the language to implement it in practice.’
  • ‘Having the best product doesn’t guarantee sales anymore.’ Thus, healthcare companies face growing pressure to innovate in providing unique ‘customer experience’.
  • The critical point to note, customer needs evolve continuously, and leading companies respond rapidly with innovative new solutions catering to changing market demand.

As the core purpose of working for ‘customer-service innovation’ is linked with creating ‘brand loyalty’, let’s have a quick recap on ‘brand loyalty’ really means for pharmaceutical products, in today’s context.

‘Brand loyalty’ for pharmaceutical products in modern times:

There are many similar definitions of ‘brand loyalty’ for a pharmaceutical product. The research article – ‘Brand Loyalty as a Strategy for the Competition with Generic Drugs: Physicians Perspective,’ published in the Journal of Developing Drugs, on August 30, 2016, defined ‘brand loyalty,’ and articulated its advantages.‘ I am paraphrasing a few of which, as below:

  • The extent of the faithfulness to a particular brand, which is a major indicator of a long-term financial performance of companies.
  • The main advantages of brand loyalty can be defined as greater sales and revenue, a substantial entry barrier to competitors, increase in a company’s ability to respond to competitive threats and lower consumer price sensitivity.
  • ‘Brand loyalty’ can protect against price competition, including branded generics, as it gives confidence to physicians on the perceived effectiveness and safety of a brand – which they usually won’t be willing to compromise with for lower prices.

This brings us to a key question. Are traditional pharma methods of creating ‘brand loyalty’ getting replaced by the key consideration of creating a ‘unique customer experience’?

Creating ‘brand loyalty’ through ‘patient loyalty’ – a new equation:

It’s a fact today that traditional pharma methods of creating ‘brand loyalty’ is getting replaced by the key consideration of creating a ‘unique customer experience.’ This, in turn, is increasing the need of building ‘patient loyalty’, both for a pharma brand, as well as respective companies offering these brands. This is a new equation, where offering a ‘unique treatment experience’ to patients assumes a critical role more than ever before. This needs to be clearly understood by today’s pharma marketer, without any ambiguity.

In traditional pharma marketing, physicians remain, virtually, the sole focus of the branding exercise, as they appear to be the only decision makers of writing a brand prescription. Patients, in general, hardly used to have any role to play in that process. In this scenario, brand loyalty for the doctors – assuming the absence of any malpractices, is primarily driven by the following three much known factors:

  • Physicians’ unprejudiced buying-in a brand’s value offerings
  • Evaluation of opinion leaders and the doctors’ professional counterparts,
  • Quality of disease treatment outcomes.

Nevertheless, before getting into this area, let’s have a quick look at the primary drivers that pharma marketers have been using to boost financial performance of a brand.

Traditional sales boosters of a pharma brand:

The primary drivers that pharma marketers have been using to boost financial performance of a brand can broadly be classified as follows:

  • Multiple ways are followed to make important doctors write more prescriptions,
  • Increase the drug price, whenever an opportunity arises.

These factors still remain important, but aren’t just enough to deliver sustainable performance over a period of time. Thus, a new dimension needs to be added to it.

Add a new dimension to create brand and corporate loyalty:

With the emergence of increasingly more informed and demanding patients, there is a need to create a ‘loyal patient population’, by offering them primarily a ‘unique treatment experience’. And this is the new dimension.

For this purpose, off-the cuff approaches or strategies based on mere gut-feelings are unlikely to work. As I indicated in one of my articles, marketers need to acquire deep insights on their customers to make sales and marketing decisions more informed, than what it is today. Currently available state of the art technology can be a great enabler to facilitate this process.

This is easier said than done, because answering the question – how does a drug company create ‘brand loyalty’, is indeed a tough call. Nonetheless, many different industries have realized, since long, that offering a ‘unique customer experience’, is critical to create a pool of ‘loyal customers’.

I also had written earlier, pharma is still a late learner in accepting various new normal, in a holistic way. Accepting this reality, a sharp focus on creating ‘brand loyal doctors’ in various innovative ways, I reckon, will serve this purpose well. It’s only recently, a few companies have started working to offer such ‘experience’ to patients in the disease treatment process - end-to-end. Ironically, a large majority of them prefer to talk about it more than actually translating the same into reality.

Benefits of ‘brand loyalty’ through ‘unique customer experience’:

There are several advantages of building pharma ‘brand loyalty’ by offering ‘unique customer experience, without diluting the focus on ‘increasing prescription generation through doctors’. The benefits, I reckon, include, both new – innovative products and also branded generics. Let me give below one example of each:

  • Innovative new-products – positive word-of-mouth promotion: Satisfied patients having ‘unique end-to-end treatment experience’ with a new, innovative brand, are very likely to share it with others. This may be done by using different modes of communication, including various social-media platforms. This, in turn, may help both – add to take-off speed – post launch and create a snowballing impact on the brand adoption thereafter.
  • Branded generics – extend the product life cycle and increase growth: Patients who are loyal to a particular branded version of a generic molecule, are quite likely to refuse any change to a cheaper equivalent, even if recommended by the physician. Moreover, they will advocate for this brand to others, using different communication platforms, as indicated above. Continuation of this process will extend the life cycle of the branded-generic, with increasing growth and market share.

Conclusion:

Now, it’s time to get back to what we started with - What pays more: Creating ‘Innovative ‘Customer Experience’ Or ‘Innovative Drug?’ From the above perspective, it emerges that bringing innovative product to markets is, of course important. However, to ensure its sustainable financial success, other innovations, such as creating ‘a unique end-to-end patient experience’ with the brand, in all probability, would weigh more. This is an area which did not receive much attention for a long time, moving beyond the creation of increasing numbers of ‘brand loyal’ doctors, for business success.

Today, increasing consumerism in the health care space, besides pricing pressure, unfavorable perception and sinking image of the industry, is creating a strong headwind – impeding desirable growth of many pharma players. Such a challenging business scenario has prompted a few of them to innovate in designing a differentiated ‘customer experience’ – in a true sense.

Although, a large number of companies are talking about it, most are mere lip-services – a ground-swell in this area is yet to take place. The industry priority, in general, still weighs heavily in developing innovative products, and creating ‘brand loyal’ doctors, rather than cultivating ‘brand loyal patients’, alongside.

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.

Any Threat To Current Commercial Model Of ‘Gene Therapy’?

Posted on by
Reply

Wish All My Readers A Very Happy, Healthy, Peaceful and Prosperous 2020

 

One of the most complex areas in disease management, is the ailments related to genetic disorders. As these were incurable, over the last four decades, medical researchers are engaged in understanding the complex and intricate process to modify human DNA, using viruses for treatment. This painstaking initiative led to the evolution of ‘gene therapy’ which, according to Mayo Clinic, ‘involves altering the genes inside human body’s cells in an effort to treat or stop the disease.’ In that process, ‘gene therapy’ replaces a faulty gene or adds a new gene, to cure a disease or improve the human body’s ability to safely and effectively treat dreaded ailments, such as cancer, cystic fibrosis, heart disease, diabetes, hemophilia and AIDS, it further added.

Several studies, e.g., one titled ‘Gene therapy on the move,’ published in the EMBO Molecular Medicine highlighted, the first gene therapy clinical trials were initiated more than two decades ago. However, initially many of these were impeded by the occurrence of severe side effects in a few treated patients. Nevertheless, over a period of time, ‘highly efficient gene targeting strategies and site-directed gene editing technologies have been developed and applied clinically.’ With over hundreds of clinical trials to date, gene therapy has moved from a vision to clinical reality – offering a powerful treatment option for the correction of monogenic disorders.

It is believed that in the new millennium, ‘gene therapy’ has emerged as one of biotech’s momentous success stories for curing many genetic disorders, which were once considered incurable. But, the cost of ‘gene therapy’ treatment is indeed jaw-dropping – ranging ‘from about US$ 500,000 to US$ 1.5m. And for treatment over a lifetime, some drugs can cost as much as US$ 750,000 in the first year, followed by US$ 375,000 a year after that – for life.

Since, I have already deliberated on ‘gene therapy’ price and associated moral dilemma that it causes, in this article, I shall focus on different concerns that could pose a threat to its ongoing commercial model. Nevertheless, let’s start with the current scenario on ‘gene therapy,’ for better understanding of the issue.

The current scenario:

According to McKinsey & Company’s October 2019 article - ‘Gene therapy coming of age’ - till 2019, the primary focus in development of ‘gene therapy’ has been on monogenic rare diseases with all currently approved therapeutics falling into this category. It is worth noting, rare diseases tend to have clear genomic targets, as well as, high unmet need in a very small patient population, who have generally been under-served by other, more traditional, therapeutic modalities (including monoclonal antibodies)—making them ideal targets for gene therapies.

More than 150 investigational new drug applications were filed for gene therapy in 2018 alone. With this in mind, McKinsey & Company expects this market to grow significantly, with ten to 20 cell and gene therapy approvals per year over the next five years.

Major ‘gene therapy’ launched:

If one takes a broad look at the ‘gene therapy’ treatments launched so far, which I have compiled from different sources, it may appear as follows.

Gene Therapy Company Country Launch Year Indication Price ($M) Current status
Glybera UniQure Europe(EMA) 2012 Pancreatitis caused by absence of a gene - lipoprotein lipase, affecting about 14 people per year in Europe 1.0 Withdrawn (unaffordable)
Strimvels GSK Europe (EMA) 2016 To treat ADA-SCID patients (rare disease) 0.665 Sold to Orchard Therapeutics. Only 5 patients were treated.
Kymriah(CAR-T therapy) Novartis USA 2017 Acute lymphoblastic leukemia 0.475
Yescarta(CAR-T therapy) Kite Pharma USA 2017 Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma 0.373 Gilead acquired Kite Pharma in August 2017 for 11.9 billion dollars
Luxturna  Spark   2017 Rare disease called RPE65 mutation-associated retinal dystrophy. 0.850 for both eyes Novartis is paying $105M up front for the ex-US rights.

The latest being Zolgensma of Novartis. It was approved by USFDA on May 24, 2019 for ‘patients less than 2 years of age with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) with bi-allelic mutations in the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene.’ It costs US$ 2.125 million in the US for a one-time treatment.

However, to get a better idea on the industry focus in this area, let us look at the current ‘gene therapy’ pipeline.

Current ‘gene therapy’ pipeline:

To fathom the extent of industry interest in ‘gene therapy’ let’s have a glance at the depth of its pipeline – both in terms of phase-wise clinical study, as well as therapy areas covered. This will help understand the concerns that could pose a threat to its ongoing commercial model.

Clinical Trial Phase Total by phase    Therapy Areas:HematologyOncologySensory OrgansInternal MedicinesOthers
I 574
II 520
III 205
Filed/Approved/Marketed 237
Total 1536

Adapted from: McKinsey article – ‘Gene therapy coming of age’, October 2019

Both large and small companies are entering into the fray:

Besides Novartis and GSK, as mentioned above, other Big Pharma constituents, such as Pfizer, Roche, Gilead and Bristol-Myers Squibb - are also putting their money in developing ‘gene therapy.’ This includes Mergers and Acquisitions too. For example:

Alongside, newer ‘gene therapy’ platforms continue to come up, many funded by venture capitals – further enriching the ‘gene therapy’ pipeline. In tandem, fresh concerns that could pose a serious threat to the ongoing commercial model of ‘gene therapy’ are also being realized. Mainly, the impact of the one-time or curative version of such avant-garde therapy on current pharma business models.

Also facilitates a giant leap towards personalized medicine:

‘Gene therapy’ is also believed to be a giant leap of medical science towards personalized medicine. This is because, in addition to repairing and replacing defective or missing genes of a human body, this therapy can use body’s own cellular immune system to treat the disease. This is because, CAR-T cell therapy can fall in the category of personalized medicine, where a patient’s T cells are changed in the laboratory, empowering them to attack cancer cells.

Concerns that could threaten its ongoing commercial model:

Despite its significant patient-value offerings with long-term benefits, ‘gene therapies’ that have been approved and are already in the market had to confront with tough unforeseen challenges, both from fresh regulatory questions - to therapy withdrawal for commercial reasons. These developments, coupled with a very low and difficult to identify patient population, and affordability related low market access, prompt the need of a transformed marketing model for novel ‘gene therapy.’ This is important for financial sustainability of current ‘gene therapies’ in most pharma markets, globally, including the United States.

Some critical areas:

An article on ‘gene therapy’ by the Managing Directors of L.E.K Consulting, published by Cell & Gene on May 16, 2019, also pointed to some of these critical areas. Even this paper articulated, the fundamental value proposition of ‘gene therapy’, its long-term efficacy with a single-dose treatment, gives rise to a number of unique challenges for its manufacturing companies. Let me paraphrase below just three of those, as I understand, to drive home this point.

Declining number of eligible patients for most doctors: 

The promise of a functional cure is expected to limit ‘gene therapies’ to a single dose per patient, in most cases. Thus, inability to re-treat would lead such therapies to deplete their addressable prevalent populations, for most doctors. This is primarily because, as the number of treated patient accumulates – the number of potential patients who could be treated in a given year is reduced. This leads to demand that would peak early before steadily declining. Once the prevalent population is depleted, the demand for a gene therapy would be driven by incident patients.

However, research has now been initiated targeting larger populations – e.g., those suffering from leukemia and lymphomas. But, the greatest revenue potential for ‘gene therapy’, is expected to be its success in delivering life-changing treatment outcomes in multiple myeloma. When such patients will get to experience better outcomes from cell and gene therapies, the incremental approach the industry has been taking in this area, will be more than justified.

Till then, it could pose a challenge to business sustainability:

As discussed, the ‘gene therapy’ sales curve with an early peak and then steady decline, caused by a depleted addressable patient population within a few years after launch, could pose a serious challenge to business sustainability. This would require launching, possibly another ‘gene therapy’ product before the revenue of the first ‘gene therapy’ starts waning. Consequently, the timing of its life cycle management efforts and subsequent launches would be a critical success factor.

Intricacy of market access dynamics:

Optimal market access of ‘gene therapy’ will call for working in unison with virtually all stakeholders, including regulators, governments, and at the same time, effectively disseminating the real-life treatment-success stories. However, both in the developed countries and also in the emerging markets, such as India, its treatment cost will continue to remain a key barrier, sans some disruptive pricing strategy.

How this tough task remains unresolved, can be sensed from the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) report of December 19, 2019 titled, ‘Novartis to Offer World’s Most Expensive Drug for Free Via Lottery.’ For this purpose, Novartis launched a lottery-style program to provide doses of its pricey gene therapy for Zolgensma, a one-shot ‘gene therapy’ cure, for free of charge. But, this approach drew criticism from patient groups that called it – an inappropriate way to distribute a lifesaving treatment aimed at babies for a deadly inherited disease whose victims cannot control their muscles. At a price of US$ 2.1 million, Zolgensma, is the world’s most expensive drug.

Conclusion:

As I discussed above, ‘gene therapy’, also known as ‘human gene transfer,’ has been one of biotech’s momentous success stories in the new millennium, paving the way for a cure of many genetic disorders – once considered incurable. However, the number of patients on ‘gene therapy’ remains small compared to other therapeutic regimens, mainly because of two factors. One – this therapy, mostly targets rare diseases, and the second – even among those small patient populations, only very few can afford such pricey therapy.

Nevertheless, current research in this complex area, is now targeting larger populations – suffering from leukemia, lymphomas and multiple myeloma. Success in these areas will open the door of significantly greater revenue potential for ‘gene therapy’ by delivering life-changing treatment outcomes. Till then, its current business model, I reckon, would continue to pose a high commercial risk to this venture.

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.

Is Pharma Industry A Late Learner, Always?

Posted on by
Reply

Several upcoming concepts in the pharmaceutical industry are becoming buzzwords today. But, most of these were recommended by stalwarts several decades ago. Interestingly, the prevailing scenario is no different, even related to wide-scale adoption of a number of cutting-edge technologies, to squarely face the ongoing challenge of changing market dynamics. Various studies point out that other industries are making transformative use of these – to be on the same page with their customers, much faster.

Pharma is considered to be a late entrant in the digital space, too. It’s still not quite clear to many, the extent by which ‘Digitalization’ is transforming the way pharma industry functions – aiming at unleashing huge opportunities for value creation – from supply chain to manufacturing – right up to creating a unique customer experience. As this subject was well deliberated in the August 2016 article on McKinsey Digital, I am not going to delve into that area today.

Therefore, the question that comes up: Is pharma industry, in general, a late learner – always, to be in sync with its contemporary customers? For exploring this point, I shall focus mainly on four areas of current hypes in the pharma business, namely - ‘patient empowerment’, ‘patient-centricity’, ‘customer experience’ and ‘E-Patients’.

In this article, I shall dwell on this subject, ferreting out some critical recent findings on the relevance of these not so recent concepts in today’s perspective. Let me start by diving deep into the time capsule.

How old are these concepts?

Industry watchers may know that these are not new concepts, in any way. The relevance of ‘patient empowerment’, ‘patient-centricity’, ‘customer experience’ and ‘E-Patients’ in the drug industry has not unfolded today, neither are these new ideas. The American medical doctor - Thomas William ”Tom” Ferguson (July 8, 1943 – April 14, 2006) was an early advocate for ‘patient empowerment’.

Since 1975: “He urged patients to educate themselves and share knowledge with one another and urged doctors to collaborate with patients rather than command them. Predicting the Internet’s potential for disseminating medical information long before it became a familiar conduit, he was an early proponent of its use, terming laymen who did so – ‘E-Patients‘.”  

Technology follows a concept and not vice versa:

With ‘E-Patient’ terminology, Dr. Thomas Ferguson talked about empowered, engaged, equipped and enabled patients. I reckon, even after close to 45 years, most of the drug industry, is still not quite there – ‘Digitalization’ initiatives notwithstanding. This is because, technology follows a concept and not vice versa.

Why it’s so?

I reckon, this is primarily because, many stakeholders often don’t pay much importance to a critical fact, which is: ‘Patient expectations and needs can differ considerably from the aims and objectives of health care providers, at both the policy and delivery levels,’ and also by many drug companies. Still, most of these entities are yet to lap up this concept.

Is reviving focus on ‘Patient Centricity’ a realistic proposition today?

Several studies in this area have concluded, to be accepted by patients, the patient experience should be the key driver for the development of solutions.’ These include, medicines, devices, information, support programs and even digital apps. Among many others, one such study was published on March 28, 2017, in the SAGE Journals, titled, ‘Patient Centricity and Pharmaceutical Companies: Is It Feasible?’

The basic question of its feasibility would prompt: ‘Would this approach help pharma players to make enough profit with the drugs?’ While addressing this query, the researchers put across the following points that need to be seriously reflected on:

  • Profit is necessary. But, how drug companies make and use business ‘profit’ is more important for long-term business sustainability.
  • It requires a clear vision at the top of creating and delivering ‘customer value’ as patients will perceive, followed by a robust assertion of ‘Patient Centricity’ across the business domains.
  • This will help break out of the cycle of “recover costs of R&D – make a profit – invest in new drugs – make more profit.” The new ball game will be – profit through customer satisfaction – invest in new drugs for greater ‘customer value and more customer satisfaction’
  • Such commitments, in turn, will help generate not just reasonable profit, but credibility with external stakeholders – such as, patients, regulators, media, etc. – creating an invaluable reputation for the organization, as a future growth booster.

Since old practices have continued for very long, virtually unchanged, a legacy factor has now crept into the system, mostly as a retarding force.

A legacy issue to overcome:

As the above research article underscores: ‘Historically, the pharmaceutical industry’s role has been to develop the science and medicines for prevention or treatment of disease.’ Whereas, ‘Patient Centricity’ involves patients as stakeholders in this scientific process. It calls for an innovative mindset, whereby ‘the industry is challenged to engage and collaborate with patients when deciding the best course of action.’ This need is now palpable within the industry, at the long last. 

Palpable needs for a new focus on designing ‘healthcare solutions’:

With the shift in the environment around the industry and its stakeholders, including patients, are feeling the need to ferret out some old classic concepts for a new focus in designing various ‘healthcare solutions.’ For this purpose, as the above research article reiterated, a better understanding of ‘patient experience’ at critical points, in the course of the diagnosis and treatment of the disease, would help designing more effective ‘health care solutions’ for better patient outcomes.

The commercial necessity for better patient outcomes, merits ‘Patient Centricity’ at the core of the pharma business model, which, in turn, calls for a shift in the cultural mindset within the pharmaceutical industry. Such a shift would involve, among others:

  • Redefining the core strategy, organizational structure, processes and capabilities to focus on transparency and value creation for the patient.
  • A change from a disease-centered to a patient-centered strategy, and from a product-led to a patient-led development process.
  • Listening to and partnering with patients, and understanding the patient perspective, rather than simply inserting patient views into the established process.

Therefore, ‘patient-centric’ initiatives of any company should begin with the basic question: how can the company make a difference for patients?

The new realization: Compete better to win, neutralizing healthcare consumerism:

To better compete and win even in the midst of evolving healthcare consumerism, instead of adding fuel to it around the world, including India, a new book – ‘Making the Healthcare Shift: The Transformation to Consumer-Centricity,’ brings some contemporary ideas where, again, many old ideas seems to have been tested with a new perspective.

Interestingly, the content of this book is based on over 60 executive interviews with the biggest names in healthcare and a quantitative research study. Some of these names include leading academic institutions, such as, the Mayo Clinic, USCF Medical Center; big drug companies like Pfizer, Lilly and Novartis. The book reveals, while healthcare organizations have recognized the need to change to ‘Patient Centricity, they often don’t know where or how to begin.

To help healthcare organizations reinvent how even traditional pharma players engage with consumers in the new paradigm, the authors identify five shifts that pharma players can make to better compete and win in this evolving landscape of healthcare consumerism. 

Need to ‘reinvent the wheel’, is more than ever before!

To ascertain the above point, I shall paraphrase just a few – ‘Patient-Centric’ and ‘Customer Experience’ related areas of the book along with my own views to help you to come to your own logical conclusion:

  • To provide a holistic disease treatment solution, keeping the patients engaged along the entire journey in the disease treatment process, pharma players should bring ‘consumer experience’ at the core of the business model. As I also deliberated in this blog that: ‘Enhancing End-To-End Customer Experience’ is, therefore, considered by many astute pharma marketers, as a vital ingredient of pharma brand building exercise. In that article, I articulated, such initiatives should cover, all the ‘’touchpoints’ and ‘episodes.’ Where ‘touchpoints’ are spots of contact or interaction and ‘episodes’ focus on end-to-end design of a specific customer-need for an organization. Aligning management and the front line around the customer experience, is critical.
  • As things stand today, the entire journey through the disease diagnosis and treatment process, in the current healthcare ecosystem, remains fragmented. Mostly because, it involves many ‘touchpoints’ and ‘episodes,’ comprising of different health care entities. Providers’ inefficiencies, of various types, encountered by patients at different points of this journey often lead to their frustration, causing an unpleasant ‘customer experience.’ To achieve this objective, by effectively addressing the aforesaid common denominator for all – ‘Patient-Centricity,’ is of paramount importance. This entails, as stated before, integrated measures for listening to and partnering with patients, alongside, placing patients’ well-being at the core of all healthcare business initiatives. From this perspective, ‘patient-centricity’ based on customer insights,represents a holistic approach to provide the disease management solutions.
  • With rapid advancement in medical science, culminating into several breakthrough innovations, the world has stepped into a new era of disease treatment solution. Increasingly, ‘one size fits all’ type of population-centric treatment, is giving away a sizeable space for a new ‘patient-centric’ variety of the same. Moving towards this direction would necessitate pharma players, along with all health care organizations to acquire a deep insight on patients. The acquired insights must be based on in-depth analysis of a robust and contemporary sets of data, including demography, attitude towards health, treatment needs and preferred options available to the targeted audience.

This brings me back to where I started from. Dr. Thomas William ”Tom” Ferguson and maybe several others, as well, had recommended similar approaches over four and a half decade ago. We did not learn it then. But, while fighting against all odds, as the industry has been facing over some time, some companies are feeling the need of learning it now. Better late than never!

Conclusion:

It has been universally accepted that market dynamics keep changing in all industries, may be faster in some than others. Looking back, one can sense similar ongoing changes both within the pharma industry and the business and social and cultural environments outside, especially related to its stakeholders. When faster, proactive changes take place within the industry than outside, it delights the customers. Similarly, faster changes in the outside environment that industry fails to keep pace with – deliberately or otherwise, will invite strong headwind impeding growth of the business and even denting its reputation. Although, the former one is desirable, the latter prevails in most areas of pharma business. A Working Paper of the Harvard Business School wanted to understand ‘How do organizations learn?’ It found, among others:

  • Performance outcomes can be augmented, if one deliberately focuses on learning from experience accumulated in the past.
  • The competitive advantage of firms critically depends on the skills of individual contributors. Hence, the centrality of individual and organizational learning is a critical factor for competitiveness of any organization.

This brings us to the question, what is a learning organization. From many similar definitions of the same, let me quote the following one, as it is apt, simple and old enough for all to have learned: “A Learning Organization is the term given to a company that facilitates the learning of its members and continuously transforms itself.” (M. Pedler, J. Burgoyne and T. Boydell, 1997)

Keeping today’s deliberation in perspective, one may possibly conclude, quick individual learners, including the organizations, can offer better performance outcomes than late learners. As the pharma business is encountering a strong headwind for quite some time, it is up to the readers making out, what type of learner the industry, in general, is, and more importantly, why it is so?

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.

Drug Pricing: Why Justify On R&D Cost Rather Than Precise ‘Customer Value’?

Posted on by
Reply

While looking around, it won’t be difficult to spot many types of steep-priced highly innovative products, where high costs aren’t justified by high R&D expenditure, but for unique ‘customer value’ offerings. Many consumers evaluate those and decide to settle for one, instead of opting for cheaper variants – delivering the basic customer requirements in that product class or category. Although, both pharma and electronic goods belong to high tech-based knowledge industries, similar examples are in plenty of the latter, but hardly any in pharma.

Agreed that pharma is a highly regulated industry, unlike electronic goods. But so are banks, financial services, airlines, telecommunication, among many others. Interestingly, all these industries are building great brands without talking about their investment costs in R&D, while doing so.

In this article, I shall focus on – despite facing a formidable headwind, mostly for the same, pharma industry, in general, continue to lack in two critical areas of brand building. But, before doing that let me quote from some recent research papers wondering, how is this situation continuing unchanged, despite all concerned being aware of it.

Two opposing views:

Just to recap, let me put below, two diametrically opposing views that continue to clash with each one, since long:

  • New and innovative drug costs being excessive, globally, lowering their prices will not harm the progress of innovation.
  • Drug industry argues, any restriction of free pricing of innovative drugs, will seriously jeopardize innovation of newer medicines and treatments.

So much of divergence in the views of two key partners within the industry, can’t just continue any longer, without a serious intervention of governments across the world, including the United States.

Pharma does want to talk about ‘Cost & Value of Medicines’. But…

It’s not that pharma doesn’t want to talk about ‘Value of Medicines,’ but not, apparently, to create an ‘emotional connect’ with its stakeholders, including the patients. It appears, more as a general justification for the high cost of new drugs. For example, a pharma trade association’s communication, after acknowledging ‘that many are struggling to access the medicine they need,’ says upfront: ‘Discussions about costs are important.’ It follows a series of much-repeated common justifications, which are no- brainer, such as:

  • Medicines Help Patients Avoid Expensive Hospital Services,
  • Developing New Treatments and Cures is a Complex and Risky Undertaking,
  • Medicines are Transforming the Treatment of Devastating Diseases.

But, the reality is, these justifications are not working on the ground, as these are not quite in sync with ‘customers’ value’ expectations, both from the company as well from the brand. Moreover, instead of establishing an ‘emotional connect’, this approach probably is further alienating many stakeholders, as several governments are now broaching the issue of price control, or some other mechanism to set drug prices.

Pharma marketers need to be eclectic:

Instead of keep following the age-old marketing and communication models, young pharma marketers need to be empowered to be eclectic. They should look around and try to fathom how is ‘marketing,’ as a business domain, changing in other fast-growing industries, and act accordingly. As pharma is a high-tech knowledge industry, let me draw examples from other similar industries, such one that innovates and manufactures electronic products.

Unlike any high-priced, high-tech electronic product companies, such as Google, Apple or Microsoft – pharma marketing communications are more like ‘justification’ centric, for charging high prices for medicines. This approach, apparently, is not just a bit defensive, but virtually negative. Whereas, unlike drug manufacturers, the above tech companies are constantly focusing on the following two areas, for creating a robust ‘corporate brand’ that infuses consumer-trust in each of their products:

  • Establishing ‘emotional connects’ with customers
  • Focusing on the total value of unique value offerings, rather than the high cost of innovation to justify high prices

Let me deliberate briefly on each of the above two.

The importance of establishing ‘emotional connects’ with customers:

With the penetration of technology, almost in every household, with a varying degree, though, access to a gamut of information becomes increasingly easy, so are the options available to customers. This is impacting almost every industry, including pharma and healthcare.

Thus, for corporate performance excellence, customers are now creating a space for themselves at the core of the pharma business strategy. Consequently, a need arises for the pharma marketers to enhance end-to-end customer experience. Besides, brand value offerings, this includes both short and long-term customer service offerings to ensure an ongoing emotional connect with customers, for more intense and longer-lasting engagement with trust, both on the ‘corporate brand’ and also on individual products.

Therefore, creating effective ‘emotional connects’ with customers are assuming a cutting-edge strategic importance – in multiple facets of pharma business. More ‘emotionally connected’ customers also act as a force-multiplier to enhance corporate reputation. Although, it mostly happens through word of mouth, in recent days, value added omnichannel communication by respective companies, is playing a crucial role for success in this area.

In the good old days, reaching patients or patient groups directly, would have been a challenging proposition. Most communications on products, diseases and treatments, used to be through healthcare providers. But, this is no longer so, especially in the digital world, that opened a new spectacle of opportunities for crafting patient-centric strategies – as patients become more digital-savvy, too.

Focus on brand value offerings, not on cost of innovation to justify high prices:

To dwell in this area, a series of questions that one may possibly encounter, such as: ‘How do you define value? can you measure it? What are your products and services actually worth to customers?’ Way back, these points were deliberated in the article – ‘Business Marketing: Understand What Customers Value,’ published in the November-December 1998 issue of the Harvard Business Review (HBR). It said: ‘Value in business markets is the worth in monetary terms of the technical, economic, service, and social benefits a customer company receives in exchange for the price it pays for a market offering.’ From this paper let me pick up just two critical components of value, as follows, for better understanding:

  • Value in monetary terms: Such as, dollars per unit
  • Value for a customer: What the person gets in exchange for the price it pays

Nevertheless, the important point to note: As ‘market offering has two elemental characteristics: its value and its price, raising or lowering the price of a market offering does not change the value that such an offering provides to a customer. Rather, it changes the customer’s incentive to purchase that market offering.’

When applied in the pharma perspective:

When the above concept of value is applied in the pharma industry perspective, it vindicates an important. Which is, tangible value offerings of an exclusive, high-priced patented products, and the same in its off-patent low-priced avatar remains unchanged, regardless of significant change in its monetary value per unit. However, unlike a patent protected drug, options for generic equivalents will be many, with differing prices.

This brings out another important facet of ‘value’. As the above HBR paper states, considerations of value take place within some context. Even when no comparable market offerings exist, there is always a competitive alternative. For example, in the pharma business, one possible competitive alternative for patented products could well be – when the Government decides to issue a Compulsory License (CL) for make the product available at a cheaper price to patients.

The name of the new game:

Thus, for an exclusive new drug, instead of focusing on cost of innovation to justify high prices, a sharp focus on ‘total value offering’ of the brand would possibly be the name of the new game. It will entail persuading the ‘connected customers’ to realize the total value of both the tangible and intangible cost of each benefit that the product offers, rather than simply the cost of a pill. In doing so, a pharma marketer and his entire team, must have an accurate understanding of what its customers value, and also, would value. This calls for a painstaking research, and a mammoth real time data analysis.

Developing a unique ‘Customer Value’ model:

As the above HBR article reiterates, ‘customer value’ models are not easy to develop. Unfortunately, pharma’s ‘value delivery system’ is still tuned to a self-serving mode and not ‘customer value’ centric.Thus, marketers may wish to note some key points in this regard, as below:

  • Many customers understand their own requirements, but do not necessarily know what fulfilling those requirements is worth to them.
  • This leaves an opportunity to demonstrate persuasively, the total ‘customer value’ that the new brand provides, and how it fulfills their requirements.
  • The strategy makers would have to necessarily generate a comprehensive list of ‘customer value’ elements, based on robust data, on an ongoing basis.
  • The acquired insight on – what customers value, and would value, to gain marketplace advantages over competitors, would form the core of the business strategy.

The next stage would be a pilot study to validate the model and understand the variations, if any, in the estimates. It is also vital to note that an improvement in some functionality may appear important, but may not necessarily mean that customers are willing to pay for it. The aim should always be delivering superior value, and get an equitable return for it. Thus, enhancing end-to-end customer experience in this effort, becomes a critical ingredient to brand success.

Conclusion:

After the article – ‘Business Marketing: Understand What Customers Value,’ published in the November-December 1998 issue of the Harvard Business Review (HBR), in June 2000, a similar article was published in the ‘McKinsey Quarterly.’ The paper titled, ‘A business is a value delivery system,’ also emphasized the importance of a clear, well-articulated “value proposition” for each targeted market segment.

This means a simple statement of benefits that the company intends to provide to each segment, along with the approximate price the company will charge for each of those. The paper also underlined, the strength of the buying proposition for any customer is a function of the product value minus the price. In other words, the ‘surplus value’ that the customer will enjoy, once that product is paid for.

Over a period of time, high prices of new and innovative drugs are attracting negative headlines, like - ‘High cost of hepatitis drug reflects a broken pricing system.’ This continues, despite high decibel justification of the ‘exorbitant’ cost of innovation. Undaunted, Big Pharma and its large trade associations remain reluctant to jettison their old advocacy toolkit.

They seem to be still on a – ‘Listen and believe what we are saying’ mode. This is vindicated by the December 14, 2019 report that revealed: ‘The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the drug industry’s top lobbying group, filed a lawsuit this week against the state of Oregon, claiming two laws it passed requiring greater transparency of drug prices are unconstitutional.’

Continuation of such approaches, on the contrary, is further alienating many stakeholders, especially the patients and the governments. Thus, time appears more than ripe today to focus more on delivering measurable ‘surplus value’ of new products, to well engaged and connected patients, both globally and locally.

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.

 

On The Flip Side of Pharma Industry: A Saga of Perennial Contradictions

Posted on by
Reply

Awesome contribution in the battle against multiple diseases, is obviously the primary facet of the pharma industry. However, on its flip side, one would witness a saga of numerous contradictions. Some of these exist perennially in well-protected opaque cocoons, regardless of what recent research data reveal. The consequences of which leaves a detrimental impact on the patient’s health interests, eventually turning into highly contentious issues, in the socio-political milieu of recent times.

While there are many such contradictions involving the pharma industry, this article will endeavor to understand just one inherent dispute. This is related to the impact of high R&D expenditure on drug prices. It assumes importance, especially at a time, when the world’s most influential pharma trade organization continues arguing in favor of the dictum – high new drug prices are driven by mind-boggling cost of drug innovation, as R&D spending keep shooting north. Incidentally, many others challenge this assertion backed by robust data, claiming it’s not so, actually.

Thus, the question that comes up, if high R&D cost prompts high drug prices, what happens when this major cost of new drug innovation comes down, as is, apparently, happening now. A proper resolution of this contradiction by ushering in transparency in this area, is important to safeguard a critical health interest of many patients. A recent research report, followed by several other important developments in this area, exposes this contradiction, probably more than ever before.  

Some recent reports revealing the contradictions:

To drive home the point of contradictions, I shall cite a few references below, from a pool of many others. For example, one such report of September 26, 2019 unfolded: ‘The cost to bring a new drug to market has decreased to under US$ 2Billion’. This was announced by Clarivate Analytics plc  while releasing the “2019 Centre for Medicines Research (CMR) International Pharmaceutical R&D Factbook.”

Interestingly, another article had sharply contradicted the above, presenting a different story altogether. Quoting the Tufts University Center for the Study of Drug Development, it highlighted that it costs US$ 2.6 billion growing at 8.5 percent annually. However, adding an estimate of post-approval R&D costs increases, the cost estimate to US$ 2870 million. Many estimated, it would take pharma companies more than 15 years of average sales to reach breakeven.

Curiously, a different research paper, titled ‘Comparison of Sales-Income and Research and Development Costs for FDA-Approved Cancer Drugs Sold by Originator Drug Companies,’ published by the JAMA Network Open on January 04, 2019 concluded quite in line with the ‘2019 CMR International Pharmaceutical R&D Factbook.’ It found, ‘Cancer drugs, through high prices, have generated incomes for the companies far in excess of research and development costs; lowering prices of cancer drugs and facilitating greater competition are essential for improving patient access, health system’s financial sustainability, and future innovation.’

Again, contradicting the above, one more article – ‘The Link Between Drug Prices and Research on the Next Generation of Cures,’ published ITIF (Information Technology & Innovation Foundation) on September 09, 2019, touted to: ‘Put simply, drug companies must make significant profits on their best-selling drugs in one generation in order to reinvest in the next generation.’

The saga of contradiction continues.

A glimpse at the current scenario:

While trying to understand the inherent contradiction in the space of cost of drug innovation by analyzing the available data, let us examine the current scenario, of course with reasons. Going by the oft-repeated justification that high R&D expenses drive the drug prices up, the converse scenario would be – a dip in the R&D expenditure should lead to a reduction in medicine prices, commensurately.

But this is unlikely to happen – drug prices won’t possibly come down due to voluntary measures of the drug manufacturers. As various recent developments indicate, it will be clear in the course of this discussion that the same justification won’t be jettisoned anytime soon.

Pharma CEOs do acknowledge that they have some role to play in helping lower drug prices. However, they continue defending prevailing high new drug prices by highlighting, their multibillion-dollar investments in R&D are responsible for advances in treatments of many serious ailments, such as cancer, hepatitis C, schizophrenia and autoimmune diseases.

This was again contradicted by another BMJ Research Study of October 23, 2019, which concludes: ‘A review of the patents associated with new drugs approved over the past decade indicates that publicly supported research had a major role in the late stage developments of at least one in four new drugs, either through direct funding of late stage research or through spin-off companies created from public sector research institutions. These findings could have implications for policy makers in determining fair prices and revenue flows for these products.’ Nevertheless, in the midst of it, signs of a shift in focus of many pharma companies in this area, is clearly discernible. 

Signs of a shift in R&D focus are clearly discernible:

This gets well- reflected in the “2019 Centre for Medicines Research (CMR) International Pharmaceutical R&D Factbook.” As the report unfolds, one of the basic shifts is a change in focus on R&D targets. Until recently, the research focus of most companies was on Noncommunicable Diseases (NCD) such as, Parkinson’s disease, autoimmune diseases, strokes, most heart diseases, most cancers, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, Alzheimer’s disease, and others. Whereas, today there has been an increased focus on rare diseases.  

What does it signify?

It obviously signifies, most companies are now trying to launch steeply priced niche products for rare diseases. This includes complex biologic products, gene therapy, personalized medicine and the likes. Which is why, a majority of current new drug approvals, targets smaller patient populations. For example, between 2010 and 2018, the number of addressable patients per drug approval decreased by 15 percent, as the above report revealed.

The bottom-line, therefore, is with the low hanging fruits already been plucked, many pharma players don’t seem to consider targeting innovation of reasonably priced mass market products. It has already happened with antibiotics and would now probably happen with several NCDs.

Two main drivers for this shift:

The two main drivers for this shift, resulting an increase in drug approvals, and significant reduction in cost per new molecular entity (NME), may be summarized as follows:

  • Increased focus on rare diseases. Of the 57 NMEs launched in 2018, 22 had an orphan drug designation, indicating that they targeted rare disease area.
  • Increased activity of smaller pharmaceutical companies. In 2018, as high as 74 percent of drug launches were developed by companies with an R&D spend of US$ 700 million to US$2 billion. Major pharma companies (R&D spend of greater than US$2 billion) accounted for just 26 percent of drug launches.

A good news!

The increase in new drug approvals driven by smaller pharma companies is a good news and also encouraging. This suggests, becoming a big company with deep pocket is no longer a prerequisite to bring an innovative drug to the market. On the contrary, making R&D programs more efficient is the name of the game, today.

Changing pharma investment strategies:

As is evident from the CMR International Factbook, drug manufacturers’’ investment strategies are also undergoing a makeover. In the R&D domain, external innovation, in general, is now playing a more critical role. Perhaps, more than ever before. In the first half of 2019 alone, global spend for pharma M&A and licensing activities was, reportedly, around US$140 billion. Interestingly, it outpaced projected 2019 R&D spend by more than 60 percent.

Do high R&D cost impact drug prices and vice versa?

This brings us to the key question: Does the high cost of R&D impact drug prices and vice versa? Or, it is being over-hyped as a tool to justify high drug prices. There are umpteen instances to believe so – for example, the world’s best-selling drug – Humira of AbbVie. According to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) of September 28, 2017, the initial U.S. patent for Humira expired in December 2016, but the additional patents expire in the 2020s.

Interestingly, according to other reports, AbbVie has collected more than US$115 billion in global Humira sales since 2010. In 2018 alone its sales amounted to US$ 19.9 billion. The report reiterates, ‘AbbVie has made and will continue to make a lot of money from Humira.’ From these facts, one can presume that AbbVie’s R&D expenditure or the product acquisition cost, has long been recovered, but still doesn’t seem to have any significant impact on the drug price.

Pharma CEOs continue to repeat the same argument:

While testifying at a hearing of the Senate Finance Committee, pharma CEOs had to confront with a Senators’ question - “Prescription drugs did not become outrageously expensive by accident, Drug prices are astronomically high because that’s where pharmaceutical companies and their investors want them.” However, acknowledging that their prices are high for many patients for high R&D expenditure, the company chiefs tried to deflect blame onto the insurance industry, government and middlemen known as pharmacy benefit managers.

The CEOs also highlighted the rebates given on list prices to benefit patients. However, the reality is, under the current system, savings from rebates are not consistently passed through to patients in any form. Interestingly, despite such scenario, pharma CEOs don’t want the government negotiating drug prices directly. It’s apparent that none of their reasonings were found to be the genuine reasons for high drug prices, even by the US Senators.

Thus, pharma’s points of justification for high drug prices have not changed, over a long period of time. On the contrary, shifting greater focus on the R&D of rare diseases, where the number of patients is much less, the CEOs seem to be bolstering their same argument on a different ground, despite reducing R&D costs.

Surfaces a glaring contradiction:

Presenting the current situation from the drug industry perspective, the article titled, ‘Drug Prices and Innovation’, published in the Forbes Magazine on June 20, 2019, emphasized on some interesting points.

It said: ‘In 2018 return on investment in drug discovery/development were 1.9 percent, far below the 10.5 percent cost-of-capital - the rate-of-return the industry must provide to compete for capital with similar investments.’  The article also emphasized: ‘Under the current pricing regime, the expected returns from drug discovery do not justify the investment. They have not done so since 2010 and are expected to turn negative by 2020.’ It further added, big pharma, despite one of the highest rates of R&D spending of any industry, chronically fails to fund research sufficient to support adequate growth and returns to the average drug don’t cover the cost of development.

On the other hand, according to a presentation by CVS Health that cited Macrotrends.net as its source,pharmaceutical manufacturers’ profit margins have reportedly exceeded 26 percent for the last three years and 22 percent for the past 10 years.

This brings out again, the glaring contradiction between what is being highlighted and what is actually happening in the pharma business. Lack of transparency in this area of the drug industry, is believed to be the root cause of this confusion among many.

Conclusion:

As it has been recognized the world over, the high new drugs prices are an issue over the contentious argument of ‘high R&D expenditure’ being the ‘root cause’.  It is, therefore, imperative for the stakeholders to demand transparency in this area. If finding a solution to this health-related issue is considered critical, without further delay, this needs to be expeditiously addressed.

As the saying goes, once the disease is diagnosed accurately, zeroing in on an effective treatment becomes easier. Let me hasten to add, for new, innovative and patented drugs, the situation in India is generally no different. Thus, there is no scope for any contradiction in this area, whatsoever. As the saying goes, once the disease is diagnosed accurately, zeroing in on an effective treatment becomes easier.

Voluntary implementation of ‘responsible’ drug pricing policies, by pharma manufacturers themselves, has been given a long rope. Time is running out now. If this does not happen soon, government control of drug prices will be essential, just as is being contemplated in the United States – the ‘capital’ of the free-pricing world. Moreover, it has been well documented in several studies that price control won’t jeopardize drug innovation, as pharma manufacturers will have to come out with innovative new products and treatments – event for survival of the business.

Saving lives – more lives, alongside making reasonable profits in the business, remain the primary facet of the pharma industry. However, the flip side of it, revealing a perennial saga of contradictions, such as one we discussed above, raises concerns of their being perceived as profiteering with drug prices, by many. Such practices go not only against patients’ health interest, but also negates the core purpose of existence of the industry – surely, endangering long term survival of this business model – as the modern technology unleashes its mesmerizing power for all.

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.

 

Honing Patient Outcomes With WHDs

Posted on by
Reply

On November 01, 2019, San Francisco-based Fitbit, Inc. announced that it has entered into a definitive agreement to be acquired by Google LLC for approximately US$ 2.1 billion. Many believe, though, the value of Fitbit lies in the health data that its wearables capture for its large base of users.

According to the CEO of Fitbit, currently the Fitbit brand supports more than 28 million active users around the globe who rely on these wearable products ‘to live a healthier, more active life.’ With Google’s resources and global platform, Fitbit will be able to accelerate innovation in the wearables category, scale faster, and make health even more accessible to everyone, he added.

The article – ‘The Real Reason Google Is Buying Fitbit,’ published in the Time magazine on November 04, 2019 makes some interesting points, such as the following:

  • The fast-growing healthcare tech space could be worth US$24 billion by 2020, says an estimate from Statista.
  • Although, Google has been working on cardiovascular health, diabetes and more, it hasn’t been publicly pushing healthcare as a business proposition, just yet.
  • Whereas, Google’s rivals, most notably Apple, have embraced healthcare as the next big battleground in the tech world, attracted by the promises of big profits for those who can help simplify a byzantine healthcare system.

Nonetheless, the Fitbit acquisition would facilitate Google’s entry into the Wearable Health Devices (WHDs) market in a big way, alongside other big players, such as, Apple and Samsung.

Driven by the most likely scenario of increasing usage and usefulness of WHDs, several pharma players are sniffing huge underlying commercial opportunity in this space, alongside being demonstrably patient-centric. Thus, my today’ article will deliberate whether or not WHDs will be able to offer a cutting edge to innovative drug marketers, by continually honing patient outcomes. Let me initiate this discussion by fathoming the importance of WHDs in the fast transforming digital world.

The importance of WHDs in the digital world:

‘Mary Meeker‘s 2019 Internet Trends Report’ highlights, about 51 percent of the global population is now connected to the internet, with the majority of users based in China, India and the United States. However, global internet user growth has slowed down by 6 percent and it’s becoming increasingly harder to get the rest of the world online.

In this background, especially - ‘As patients become more involved in making decisions about their health care, research shows, the result is increased satisfaction and improved health outcomes.’Consequently, the report spotlights healthcare digitization where consumer adoption of digital health tools is increasing rapidly. Some of the top areas, in terms of their speed of adoption, were listed as follows:

  • Online Health Information
  • Online Provider Reviews
  • Mobile Tracking
  • Wearables
  • Live Video Telemedicine

This gives a sense of how fast the WHDs are gaining importance for the consumers. Interestingly, Intouch Group also points out that wearables are now being used more to manage a diagnosis rather than just fitness trackers. Adding further, it pointed out – ‘Apple’s ResearchKit is an example of what CEO Tim Cook calls the “democratization of healthcare,” in that it provides health data directly to consumers so they can manage their health.’

A recent study on the scope of wearables: 

The scope of WHDs was aptly corroborated in a recent article – ‘The Rise of Wearable Technology in Health Care,’ published in the JAMA Network Open on February 01, 2019. The paper concludes, the general principle of commercially available ubiquitous wearable computers bodes well for our future ability to measure, track, and understand patient physiological data and behavior both in the hospital and at home.

The ability to capture such data, then applying machine learning to get the evolving health trends and sending alerts to patient accordingly – nurses, and physicians are instantaneously getting empowered to deliver patient outcomes. The fact that the alert can come easily via the patients’ smartphones that a significant part of the global population now carries with them, leading to further democratization of health care.

The Economist  also predicted, by 2020 – 80 percent of the adult population of the world would have a smartphone in their pocket. Therefore, this development opens up an entirely new world of real-time data acquisition, monitoring, and intervention, the paper underscored.

Giving a relevant example, it highlighted: ‘On December 6, 2018, Apple rolled out a software upgrade that turns the Apple Watch Series 4 into a personal electrocardiogram.’ The researchers further added, while WHDs’ fidelity may not yet exactly match medical-grade monitors and devices, these are “good enough” coupled with around-the-clock capabilities, real-time data capture, storage, and analytics and seem likely to provide real value.

The opportunities with WHDs:

Both from the health and business perspectives, WHDs are opening new vistas of opportunities for all stakeholders in the healthcare space, such as, patients, doctors, care providers and also pharma companies. This was enunciated in several studies, such as one, titled ‘Wearable Health Devices – Vital Sign Monitoring, Systems and Technologies,’ published by Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) on July 25, 2018.

This paper also reiterated: ‘Wearable Health Devices (WHDs) are increasingly helping people to better monitor their health status both at an activity/fitness level for self-health tracking and at a medical level providing more data to clinicians with a potential for earlier diagnosis and guidance of treatment. The technology revolution in the miniaturization of electronic devices is enabling to design more reliable and adaptable wearables, contributing to a world-wide change in the health monitoring approach.’

Thus, a big excitement is currently palpable around the technology related to WHDs. Many more opportunities are expected to unfold for continuation of the ascending trend. With the entry of big global tech giants such as, Apple and now Google, besides scores of small startups, WHDs of many types have started entering into the healthcare, carrying a promise to improving outcomes and creating a unique patient experience in the disease treatment process.

Improves outcomes, creates a unique disease treatment experience:

Echoing many other experts in this area, I also believe that WHDs have covered a lot of ground by now – expanding its usage from fitness trackers to diagnosis of disease and then monitoring the progress both during and after treatment. Current usages of WHDs are mostly for non-infectious chronic diseases, such as diabetes, cardiovascular conditions, sleeping disorders, obesity and treatment compliance, besides others. The list is gradually expected to expand.

Apparently, encouraged by this trend, more pharma players are now moving into this area for significant brand value for augmentation through better patient outcomes – apace with providing a unique disease treatment experience for suffering individuals.

The scope in India:

As WHDs have a close link with both Internet and Smartphone penetration, let me try to weigh the potential of the wearables, in view of the current status of both in the country.

According to the India Internet 2019 Report by Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI), the following three points are indeed noteworthy, besides others:

  • With 451 million monthly active internet users at the end of financial year 2019, India is now second only to China in this regard.
  • Urban India with 192 million users had almost the same number of users as rural India. However, in terms of percentages or penetration, given the disparity of population distribution in urban and rural India, urban India had a considerably higher penetration level.
  • In rural India, a sizable portion does not have access to the Internet, and provides a huge opportunity for growth which will contribute to an increase in the overall Internet population over the next few years, it said.

Similarly, according to the Statista report, for 2017, the number of smartphone users in India was estimated to reach 299.24 million, with the number of smartphone users worldwide forecast to exceed 2.3 billion users by that time, and was projected to be nearly 2.7 billion by 2019.

These numbers speak for themselves on the underlying opportunities of WHDs – both globally and locally. Accordingly, large pharma players have already started teaming up to deliver better patient outcomes, leveraging the value of WHDs.

Pharma players teaming up to deliver better patient outcomes with WHD:

There are several such examples. Nevertheless, to illustrate the point, let me cite one such recent instance of Abbott Laboratories announcing a deal on February 20, 2019 with Novo Nordisk to make diabetes management easier by linking technologies of the two companies. The deal will allow integration of insulin dose data for Novo Nordisk’s pre-filled and connected pens with its ‘FreeStyle’ Libre mobile app and cloud-based system.

‘Abbott’s ‘FreeStyle’ Libre Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) system will read glucose levels through a sensor that can be worn on the back of the upper arm eliminating the need for routine finger pricks. Through the FreeStyle LibreLink app users can capture and view their real-time glucose levels, their eight-hour glucose history, and how their glucose is currently changing on their smartphone.’

Yet another report highlighted, ‘Google sister-company Verily is teaming with big pharma on clinical trials.’ On May 21, 2019, the company announced strategic alliances with the pharmaceutical companies Novartis, Sanofi, Otsuka and Pfizer to help it move more deeply into the medical studies market. The goals for Verily, and its pharma partners, are to reach patients in new ways, make it easier to enroll and participate in trials, and aggregate data across a variety of sources, including the electronic medical record or health-tracking wearable devices,’ the report emphasized.

Conclusion:

It seems clear that in the rapidly transforming digital world, many drug companies are realizing the criticality of making their business operations sine qua non with the evolving trend is essential. This is not just for the organization progress, but also for long-term survival of the business. In the midst of this exciting technological environment, the potential value of WHDs to deliver better patient outcomes is being brought to the fore, primarily by the pure tech companies.

Figuring out the magnitude of the new opportunity, several pharma companies have thrown their hats in the ring, primarily in the form of collaborative deals. This ushers in a new phase in the healthcare space. Mostly because, such initiatives will have to be patient-centric for providing a unique patient experience with the drugs, in the disease treatment process. As India too, is taking rapid strides for penetration of digital technology in its ‘Health for All’ initiatives, the use of WHDs for better and cost-effective patient outcomes isn’t a pipe dream, any longer.

The evolving scenario, therefore, opens yet another door for the pharma players to grow their business, not just with drugs offering differential value, but also by making even a ‘me-too’ drug perform better, leveraging the potential of WHDs, effectively. From this perspective, continuously honing patient outcomes with WHDs, appears to be a unique tool for pharma marketers to make use of – in search of 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.

 

Pharma Branding At Tough Times

Posted on by
Reply

“About two-thirds of drug launches don’t meet expectations. Improving that record requires pharmaceutical companies to recognize the world has changed and adjust their marketing accordingly.” This appeared in an article – “The secret of successful drug launches,” published by McKinsey & Company in March 2014. There isn’t any recent evidence, either, that this situation has improved now.

Even innovative drugs no longer guarantee a commercial success, as greater competition is building up there, as well. Today, the number of such drugs per indication has risen by 37 percent since 2006 making the task tougher, according to another article of McKinsey & Company, titled ‘Why innovative products aren’t enough for a successful pharma launch,’ brought out in August 2017.

Top marketers’ intimate involvement in these launches, backed by robust marketing strategies notwithstanding, large scale ‘brand failures’ or rather ‘branding failures,’ still remains unavoidable. Although, its telltale signs are more often visible immediately after launch, but may happen even several years after.

Pundits are just not scratching their heads, but doing extensive research to fathom why it happens. However, with changing times – the market dynamics and the research outcomes/inferences keep changing too. And that will be the focus of my today’s discussion in this article, while I explore various facets of the same.

Is pharma branding just a marketing exercise?

That pharma branding is not just a marketing exercise and its failure at any stage – from launch to even years after, I reckon, isn’t the sole responsibility of the pharma marketer. This is mainly because, doctors would ideally prefer to prescribe specific pharma brands and patients would feel confident to use those, because of successful construction of a positive brand bias. Which in turn creates a higher perceived efficacy and a low anticipated safety concern with the brand.

Although, it will be right to assume that good pharma marketers are solely responsible for the creation of this intangible brand asset, but the tangible intrinsic brand value should necessarily be ingrained into each dose of the same that patients consume, always.

Thus, tangible brand value creation, its maintenance, if not enhancement, span across many other functional domains of a drug company. Some of these include, unbiased reporting with expected disclosures of all clinical trial results, maintaining a robust and highly efficient supply chain network or high-quality manufacturing facilities, besides a few others. Evidences exist that irrational pricing could also result in a kind of brand failure. Considering these aspects in totality, creating a positive bias during a pharma brand-building process, is a collective responsibility, and not just of the marketers.

Why creating a positive brand bias is a collective responsibility?

There are ample examples to substantiate that creating a positive stakeholder bias during its brand-building process, is a collective responsibility. Let me illustrate this point by drawing a few examples of branded failures prompted by supply-chain network, disclosures on clinical development and of course perceived ‘irrational’ pricing that falls basically in the marketing domain. It is worth noting, similar incidents may also be related to the manufacturing process, even for top selling generic drugs.

Supply-chain: In the beginning of 2008, serious adverse drug events, some even fatal, were reported with Heparin (Baxter), which used to be widely used as an injectable anticoagulant. Around 80 people died from contaminated Heparin products in the U.S. The US FDA reported that such contaminated Heparin was detected from at least 12 other countries. The primary reason of the same was a serious breach in the supply-chain integrity.

Disclosures on clinical trial results: On 30 September 2004, Vioox (rofecoxib), a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) that had been on the market since 1999, was suddenly withdrawn by its manufacturer MSD, owing to concerns about its effect on cardiovascular health.

‘Irrational’ pricing: Like a lot of new cancer drugs, Zaltrap (aflibercept) wasn’t cheap carrying a price tag of USD 9,600 a month. But its price was quickly taken down. This followed some serious public flak, such as, doctors from Memorial Sloan-Kettering (MSK) wrote a blistering review for The New York Times in November 2012. They declared that MSK was taking the drug off the institution’s formulary, because less expensive and just as good alternative angiogenesis inhibitors were available. Although, Sanofi initially defended the price, it subsequently backed down, cutting down the price by half.

Manufacturing process: On September 13, 2019, the FDA announced that preliminary tests found low levels of N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) in ranitidine (Zantac), a heartburn medication. Consequently, almost all companies, including Novartis (through its generic division, Sandoz), GSK, Apotex and many others announced its withdrawal from a large number of markets. Interestingly, these announcements came after a Connecticut-based online pharmacy informed the FDA that it had detected NDMA in multiple ranitidine products under certain test conditions. The NDMA impurity was believed to have been introduced by changes in the manufacturing process. There are several other well-reported examples, as well.

These examples vindicate that creating a positive brand bias remains a collective responsibility throughout the product lifecycle. And it involves several functional areas of drug companies. That said, let me now focus on the creation of a positive bias for pharma brands.

Creating a positive brand bias:

Skillful creation of a positive brand-bias, supported by high quality – tangible and intangible value offerings, is the net outcome of any successful branding process. It augments stakeholder confidence, leading to an increased prescription generation, alongside a favorable patient experience.

More often than not, a positive brand-bias successfully brings into being greater perceived brand-efficacy and higher perceived brand-quality, with lesser anticipated safety concerns. Consequently, the process invigorates an emotional bonding with customers for a long-term brand-loyalty. A positive brand-bias also creates a strong brand equity that often helps in working out a good pricing strategy for the company.

An interesting strategy prescribed – recently:

The October 8, 2019 issue of Fierce Pharma featured an article on creating a positive brand-bias with “Prime and prompt” marketing strategies, outlined by CMI/Compas.

According to Changing Minds: ‘Priming works by providing people with information that is easily brought to mind. The prompt that brings the information to mind can be an implanted and specific trigger or can be an associated term that will naturally bring back the primed information.’ Illustrating the point, it adds: ‘Prime-and-prompt can be a bit like firing a gun, where priming cocks and prompting pulls the trigger.’

Putting this concept in the pharma industry perspective, the CMI/Compas officials explained in the above article, ‘pharma marketers can create primes with product messages that condition people to recall their product when they need medicine or are diagnosed with a condition.’

Hence, a pharma marketer’s adroitness in the ‘priming’ strategy helps ‘prompt’ the desirable action, such as, going to a doctor to ask about a product. Hence, the persuasion technique is termed – ‘prime and prompt’, the paper explained. Naturally, the question that follows: what are the key principles behind this strategy?

Key principles behind ‘prime and prompt’ strategy:

As elucidated by the Changing Minds, when thinking and deciding, we are influenced by related information from the past. At that time, our memories would supply that information, which helps us understand, make sense, decide and act on the subject at hand. Thus, those things that come at the top of mind will have a more immediate and disproportionate influential effect, while those things which are long forgotten may have little or no effect.

It further adds: ‘Priming is driven by implicit memory, where recall is entirely unconscious as the person ‘just knows’ without having to think hard or otherwise put effort into remembering or working things out.’

How to apply the ‘prime and prompt’ strategy in pharma?

It’s no-brainer that to use ‘priming’ in the persuasion process, say for increasing prescription support, the marketers need to provide stakeholders with relevant information beforehand, and more importantly, in a different setting. And only thereafter, they need to focus on a normal brand persuasion strategy. One may most appropriately comment, this is easier said than done in the drug industry.

Taking a cue from the above interview with the CMI/Compas officials, some of the broad steps of the ‘prime and prompt’ strategy, I reckon, may be summarized as follows:

  • Consistent messaging through omnichannel media achieving target reach and frequency, as I had explained before.
  • For intended top of mind recall, a combination of print, digital, social, search, display at appropriate places and in TV, especially for OTC drugs, should consistently surround the target audience for ‘priming.’
  • According to a recent research, the most highly rated ‘priming’ spots for pharma ads for physicians are medical journals, conferences and the likes. Similarly, for patients, appropriate displays at doctors’ clinics and similar places also appeared to be one of the top-rated ‘priming’ spots.

Consequently, a well thought-out ‘priming’ strategy, skillfully executed – based on research findings, is expected to be effective. It will then help trigger desirable ‘prompts’ for the target-audience, augmenting a successful branding process. However, it comes with a caveat that the tangible intrinsic value of the brand, especially those which originate in other functional areas, don’t get compromised or changed in any way.

Conclusion:

Branding exercise in the pharma industry has never been more challenging, as it is today – both for innovative and generic drugs. As stated above, the number of innovative drugs per indication has risen by 37 percent since 2006, making the market competition tougher. Likewise, product proliferation with cut-throat pricing for branded generics, is also making the generic drug marketers grasping at straws, as it were.

In this challenging situation, creating a positive stakeholder bias for brands, as the net outcome of the pharma branding process, is a collective responsibility. Any non-marketing misstep in the tangible brand value offering, could sweep a brand away to oblivion – not just during launch, but at any stage of its life-cycle. Pharma marketers will of course be solely responsible to create the critical intangible brand assets, such as a positive stakeholder bias for brands.

At this tough time for pharma branding, several fresh marketing concepts like, ‘prime and prompt’ are now being seriously evaluated. Thus, I reckon, its also a time for astute marketers in the pharma industry to test the water, in pursuit of 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.

 

Are Pharma Business Ethics And Performance Interlinked?

Posted on by
Reply

Way back in the 1960s, many could realize that of upcoming consumer-focused business environment will bring business practices under intense stakeholder scrutiny. This prompted both the business schools, as well as the commercial organizations to bring the concept of ‘business ethics’ under focus.

However, a boom in the ‘Business Ethics’ curriculum, virtually in every business school, globally, alongside numerous training programs, was palpable around the 90’s. This trend continues even today with as much gusto, but with increasing participation of various companies, primarily to showcase their commitment to ethical standards and values as fundamental business requirements.

Like many other industries, the same is visible in the pharma business, as well. Which is why, many pharma CEO’s, such as of Novartis, emphasized even in its 2018 CEO’s letter to the company shareholders that: ‘We have made clear to everyone at Novartis that we must never compromise our ethical standards to meet business objectives.’ The previous CEO of the same company also used similar words. Moreover, one can find a similar commitment to business ethics being displayed in the respective websites of many other drug companies.

I have discussed various different aspects on this subject since 2011. One such article is titled, ‘Business Ethics, Values and Compliance: Walking the Talk,’ published in this blog on December 26, 2011. However, in this article, after a broad outline, I shall endeavor to explore whether or not compliance with pharma business ethics is intimately related to the company’s performance, especially in the medium to longer term. While doing so, let me help recapitulate what exactly does ‘business ethics’ mean to all?

‘Business Ethics’:

As many would know, the ‘business ethics’ or ‘ethical business behavior’, is defined as ‘acting in ways consistent with what society and individuals typically think are good values. Ethical behavior tends to be good for business and involves demonstrating respect for key moral principles that include honesty, fairness, equality, dignity, diversity and individual rights.’

When this definition is applied to the pharma industry, in general, one finds, despite bringing to market top innovative drugs, a pharma player with dubious ethical behavior, may face a great risk of losing its reputation – a key element for business success, if not survival.

What is happening today in this area?

As, stated above, from various statements of pharma head honchos and also as displayed in their respective websites, it seems to be a serious area for them. Intriguingly, despite such laudable intent, the situation on the ground for many of these companies are quite different. According to reports, even in the Indian Pharma Industry, blatant disregard for maintaining basic ethical standards is, reportedly, not uncommon, either. Interestingly, no less than the Prime Minister of India is, apparently, aware of some of these issues in the pharma industry.

Ultimate ethical goals and consumer perceptions of ethical behavior:

Many research papers have been discussing this point, since long. They also flagged some critical areas, across pharma business domains, for corrective action. One such paper is titled, ‘Ethical challenges in the pharmaceutical industry,’ published in the April 2012 issue of Pharmaceuticals Policy and Law.

It clearly articulated, the ultimate ethical goal in the pharmaceutical industry is to discover and develop safe, efficacious and high-quality drugs that allow patients to live longer, healthier and more productive lives, while making a profit to reward shareholders and to invest in research for the next generation of medicines. The essence of it holds good also for generic drugs, too.

While this may be mostly happening, as the article noted, overall consumer perception of pharma business ethics is largely negative. This avoidable stakeholder perception is primarily triggered by, among others, pricing, data disclosure, clinical study design, marketing practices, cost effectiveness of treatments, and often reported ‘pharmaceutical frauds’, as quoted earlier.

Regardless of drug industry claim, consumers generally perceive new drug discovery as a fundamental business necessity for the industry. Whereas, they are more interested in access and affordability to these drugs, besides other related business practices. This brings us to the question – Are alleged breach of ‘business ethics’ systemic in nature for pharma?

Are ‘business ethics’ related issues, systemic in nature?

While many pharma CEOs keep highlighting, how ethical their operating standards and corporate values are, reports keep coming that these issues are not superficial but systemic in nature. One such report was published in Fierce Pharma on October 14, 2019 carrying a headline – “Novartis appears to have a systemic ethics problem. What can it do make amends?” Justifying this caption, the news article elaborated:

‘When a company is repeatedly embroiled in scandals or compliance breaches—from on-the-ground sales activities to decisions made at the very top—an isolated infection isn’t to blame. It’s a systemic illness. And judging by the long list of allegations and infractions at Novartis, that’s what the Swiss drug maker is facing. But is there a cure? Some soul-searching and a closer look at the company’s culture could help.’

Quoting a corporate ethics and compliance expert Hui Chen, the article underscored, for such malpractices ‘don’t just blame everything on a few rogue employees.’ Pharma leadership may wish to accept this reality and make amends wherever necessary, soon. With the above perspective, it will also be worth looking at, how is this toxin invading a corporate system, jeopardizing its business performance, and why?

Even patients expect pharma to demonstrate ethical business practices:

Generating new and more prescriptions for patients’ treatment being the lifeblood of any pharma business, the core strategic focus of the business should naturally be on patients, and the society they belong to. This is a fundamental requirement, not just for making profit in business, but for its survival, too. It is now clear that even patients are becoming increasingly aware of this fact.

Consequently, they expect the pharma players to demonstrate ethical behavior and follow ethical business practices, instead of being on a self-serving mode. Scores of instances, across the globe, suggest that many pharma players are failing again, again and again in this critical area of business. One may say that commercial interests overshadowing consumers’ interests, is not uncommon in business. But wait a minute, we are talking here about an industry that patients look up to, while fighting dreaded diseases to save lives. Thus, the question that follows – why is this virus of non-compliance to business ethics invading a corporate system?

How is this virus invading a corporate system?

Search for an answer to this question isn’t new. It was discussed in the Harvard Business Review - more than 25 years ago, in its May-June 1993 article – ‘What’s the Matter with Business Ethics?’ Even at that time, the author noted: The more entrenched the discipline of business ethics becomes in business schools, the more bewildering it appears to managers. This discussion brought to the fore many interesting points. One such was, the field of business ethics is largely irrelevant for most managers. It’s not because that they are hostile to the idea of business ethics, but ‘real-world competitive and institutional pressures lead even well-intentioned managers astray.’

Presumably, because of this reason, as the Author acknowledged, all managers face “hard issues whose solutions are not obvious,” where the “reconciliation of profit motives and ethical imperatives is an uncertain and highly tricky matter.”

Thus, I reckon, many organizations find achieving organizational expectations, especially for demanding short-term financial goals, while maintaining business ethics, is becoming a real challenge. Similar sense would obviously influence many practicing managers, too. Now, the question that comes is, what happens to the organization, if its managers keep doing so to achieve the set financial objectives of the company?

When achieving end-goals by following business ethics is considered impractical:

If the business strategy is increasing brand prescription generation by any possible manner to outperform competition, the means adopted to meet the goals may find easy acceptance by many in the company. In the pharma industry, such situation may arise while chasing annual and monthly targets or at times closing the month-end sales deficits, too. Such acts may help achieve short-term goals with flying colors, regardless of blatant violation of business ethics or breaking legal norms, such as, bribing prescribers for writing prescriptions.

When remains undetected, such practices continue. But, when repeated compromises on the ethical practices of a company at the cost of patients’ interest, surface and reported by the media, one precious asset of the organization gets seriously damaged – its reputation. Again, one may ask, will it have any impact on the company’s medium to long term financial performance?

How are ethical ‘business practices’ and the company’s performance interlinked?

The fine thread that links these two, is the corporate reputation – an invaluable asset of the organization, having a strong connect with stakeholders, including patients – for a sustainable business growth. The broader aspects of its consumer-connection have been discussed by both academia and individual experts. One such illustration may be drawn from the Charter College of the United States.

It underscores: ‘Not only does it feel good to be part of a company with a great reputation, but it’s great for business. When you have a reputation for consistently being ethical in how you source and build products, and treat employees, customers and the community, more people will want to do business with you. This means you’ll appeal to a variety of people and organizations that will be great for boosting your business…’

This means, compromising with ethical business practices to achieve short-term goals comes at a great risk of jeopardizing the medium and long-term success and sustainability of the organization. This is not a mere theoretical possibility. Research studies also vindicate that ‘reputation is an economic multiplier.’

Reputation is an economic multiplier:

Some may conclude, ethical business practices may help enhance company’s reputation, but don’t create any significant impact on business performance. This point has been well deliberated by the Reputation Institute (RI) in its analysis, titled - ‘The Business Case for Reputation.’

The analysis established ‘a strong reputation yields 2.5 times better stock performance when compared to the overall market.’ This vindicates the point that reputation indeed enhances corporate performance for its stakeholders and is an economic multiplier. Understandably, the paper reiterated: ‘This is not a bold claim — it’s a fact.’

Conclusion:

The drug industry, in general, and research-based pharma players in particular, seem to feel that propagating its focus and efforts on bringing innovative drugs to the market, would help build a good reputation. But it doesn’t really happen that way. Instead, public perception that helps create corporate reputation, is often driven mainly by issues such as drug pricing – access and affordability, besides various widely reported alleged unethical business practices of drug companies.

Many such purported breaches in ethical behavior of a company are recurrent, such as one that was reported on October 22, 2019. It said, Novartis’ Zolgensma launch has been anything but boring: First a record-setting price tag, then a data-manipulation scandal and now the company is facing “manufacturing questions” that will delay Zolgensma’s approval in the EU and Japan.

The impact of these alleged unethical business practices of drug companies also got reflected in the 2018 2018 Gallup Poll where the pharma industry came out as the most poorly regarded industry, ranking last on a list of 25 industries that Gallup tests annually. Interestingly, the Reputation Institute (RI) also reported a 3.7 percent decline in pharma reputation between 2017 and 2018.

Thus, the core point that stands out is, ethical business practices and company performance are interlinked. Ethical business behavior plays a key role to enhance a company’s reputation, which in turn add value to the long-term financial performance of the company and vice-versa.

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.