Tag Archives: abbott

Being Eclectic – A Pharma Leadership Quality In The New Normal

Posted on by
Reply

It’s no-brainer that since the onset of Covid pandemic, digitalization initiative of many pharma companies in critical facets of business operations, has reached a new high. The process is now fast accelerating with the adoption of avant-garde ideas, and scalable digital tools and platforms. Some of these initiatives may be incremental in nature, but several others possess game changing potential in delivering business outcomes.

This period of transformation is also an opportune time for pharma leadership to be more eclectic, while working out strategies to gain business momentum – outpacing the competition. As is being revealed, strategic inputs from a diverse range of sources – often from totally different areas, to meet fast changing customer needs and expectations, would immensely help in the new normal.

In this article, I shall argue on the need of being eclectic for pharma leadership to gain competitive edge, especially in the trying times. I shall elaborate this point with the example of an eclectic idea – Gamification. If used where it ought to be, eclectic ideas may help organizations to successfully navigate through unprecedented disruptions, especially, caused by Covid pandemic, in various critical areas of pharma business.

Gamification – an eclectic strategic tool for pharma:

Gamification – an eclectic strategic tool, ‘incentivizes people’s engagement and activities to drive results with game-like mechanics.’ Various companies, across the industries, are leveraging this technique for greater effectiveness in different business domains. This includes, driving employee motivation for sustainable performance excellence.

I discussed ‘Gamification in Pharma’ in this blog – about a year before the onset of the pandemic. However, its potential is being increasingly realized with virtual engagement becoming more common during Covid pandemic. Several drug companies are now imbibing Gamification techniques to offer greater value in several areas of business. These include, among others, chronic disease management, adherence to the prescribed dosage regimen, and also for training and development.

The core purpose and value: 

The core purpose of Gamification is to effectively engage with both internal and external customers of an organization, with clearly captured details of their changing needs and expectations in the new normal. Game mechanics are basically the rules and rewards that build the foundation of game play. Game dynamics involve a set of emotions, behaviors and desires found in game mechanics that help foster engagement and motivate participants.

The broad process of Gamification entails integration of game mechanics on various existing platforms. These include, a website, online community, learning tools - providing target audiences with proactive directives and feedback through game mechanics that lead to the accomplishments of business goals and objectives.

According to BI Worldwide - a global engagement agency, ‘Gamification is about driving engagement to influence business results.’ When people participate and engage with gamification initiatives, they learn the best way to interact with the business, its products, services and in thereby in the brand building process.

It further says, the business value of Gamification doesn’t end with the participant. Engagement with game mechanics provides insightful data that can help influence marketing campaigns, platform utilization and performance goals. Every employee or customer interaction gives a better sense of where a participant is spending their time and what activities drive interest.

Application of ‘Gamification’ in pharma is a decade old now:

Gamification isn’t totally a new concept in the pharma industry. It was successfully tried by some pharma majors, at least, about a decade ago. Let me give below just a couple of examples from that period to get a feel of it:

Way back in 2011, Pfizer created the Back in Play game for European patients, to boost knowledge of ankylosing spondylitis, a disease that causes inflammation in the spine and pelvis joints. Interestingly, the game delivered a simple healthcare message to a notoriously difficult to reach audience 38 million times.

In 2012, Boehringer Ingelheim launched its pharma game – ‘Syrum’ on Facebook platform. This particular initiative is considered as an evolution in the pharma industry’s use of the social media platform. It gave the Company a new tool to educate and expand the knowledge of the general public about the challenges of its business. It also helped to improve disease awareness, besides allowing the company to conduct its market research.

Besides these two, other interesting Gamification initiatives taken around that period include, Zec Attack (Novartis), Silence Your Rooster (Sanofi).

Its potential in pharma marketing – and what to avoid:

Applying game mechanics to healthcare marketing could also help ensure that patients are activated, educated, and engaged throughout the duration of their care, driving both – business performance and patient outcomes. This observation was made in an article on ‘Gamification’, published in the Pharmaceutical Executive on February 28, 2019. Another article titled, ‘Gamification is Serious Business’ also reiterates, ‘Research and case studies from both the academic and healthcare space bring forth ample evidence that games can improve patient compliance and healthcare outcomes.’

However, if any pharma marketer enters into the gamification arena with greater focus on the desired outcome than on patient goals, or the games themselves don’t excite, engage, and motivate the users, the efforts may not succeed.

Gamified e-learning helps during Covid pandemic:

An interesting study on ‘The Impact of COVID-19 on Learning,’ conducted by find courses, noted some interesting points. A few of which, are as follows:

  • Covid pandemic is fueling an unprecedented interest and opportunity for many people to acquire more job knowledge and skills, mainly to protect their future in uncertain times.
  • In tandem, people’s priorities when it comes to learning are also changing. Health-safety being at the forefront of many learners’ minds, they prefer mostly online courses, or heavily reduced classroom sizes - to maintain social distancing.

It has also been noted that many such learners often find virtual learning programs uninteresting and lackluster. Sensing this issue, many organizations, which include some pharma companies, are now using Gamification to augment learning effectiveness and build greater team harmony. Let me illustrate this point with an example from the pharma industry during the ongoing pandemic.

It’s more relevant in the new normal:

On June 04, 2021, Fierce Pharma featured an article on Pharma companies’ getting into gaming to boost retention, recall – and fun. There, it quoted a top official of the global pharma major AbbVie, who said: “Gamification has become more important and more impactful in the virtual environment.”  The honcho further said: “The pandemic showed we need this now more than ever. – It’s given an extra push to what has always been core to what we do, which is retention and recall in a fun and engaging manner.”

The report elaborates, AbbVie Canada uses gamification to onboard new reps, district managers and brand managers as well as for national sales meetings. Instead of studying or reading up, AbbVie asks employees to do the advance work through gamification tasks and then follows with more tasks after the meetings to boost retention and recall.

The Global Healthcare Gamification Market Report 2021-2027, also vindicates this point. As it reported, utilization of new healthcare gamification applications based on mobile tablets and laptops, witnessed a good growth during Covid pandemic. It reported, ‘Healthcare Gamification Market’ is expected to reach US$35,982.7 million in 2027 from US$ 3,072.5 million in 2019 with an estimated CAGR of 36.2% from 2020-2027.

Gamification is now being used by pharma in India, as well:

Abbott India is using elements of gamification in its customer services through a: care program. As the company Press Release says: ‘This new healthcare service is designed with games, quizzes and recognition programs to support patients, doctors and pharmacists throughout the entire healthcare journey, from awareness and prevention to motivation to get and stay healthy.’

In India, since quite some time, many well-known non-pharma companies are successfully using gamification for employee engagement and hiring.

Conclusion:

Unprecedented disruptions caused by Covid pandemic have considerably impacted the business operations of virtually every industry in India – just as other nations, across the globe. Since the onset of the pandemic, non-covid related medical centers, fitness institutions or gyms remained shut. Getting F2F – in clinic or hospital care, especially for non-Covid patients were also challenging for several reasons, with virtual care being the only options for many.

Interestingly, with most interactions and engagements – including learning, training and development programs going virtual, ‘Gamification’ initiatives started gathering wind on the sail, in some of those areas. This happened mainly because, organizations, institutions and people were driven to look for digital and app-based solutions for all needs and necessities, for a sustainable progress in an uncertain future.

An article on gamification, published in the PharmaPhorum on March 21, 2021, reiterated the same. It said, “Gamification” – adding game-like elements into non-game or real-world settings – has become a popular concept in the pharmaceutical, healthcare, and event industries, especially as virtual engagement becomes more common during COVID-19.’

With diverse applications and approaches, Gamification is quickly becoming a promising tool in various areas of pharma service and operations. These include, patient adherence, chronic disease management, preventive medicine, rehabilitation, besides better customer engagement, medical education, training, hiring and more.

From this perspective, in my view, pharma leadership now needs to more eclectic, and try using methods and approaches, such as, ‘Gamification’ – drawn from various other disciplines, in pursuit of excellence in the new normal.

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.

Come Covid-19 Drug And Vaccine, Pharma Will Get Back To The Traditional Mode

Posted on by
Reply

‘Corona will remain a part of our lives for a long time. But at the same time, we cannot allow this to happen that our lives will be confined only around the corona. We would wear masks, follow two yards distance and pursue our goals. Therefore, the fourth phase of lockdown, lockdown 4, will be completely redesigned, with new rules,’ said the Prime Minster of India, during his televised address to the nation on May 12, 2020.

Many countries around the world, have already decided to move ahead, phasing out Covid-19 lockdowns cautiously, in a manner that each country will deem appropriate. Alongside, in line with many other industries, several pharmaceutical companies seem to have also started accepting this new reality. For example, Novartis, which reportedly, started digitizing its sales and marketing even before the COVID-19 pandemic, has hit the fast forward button.

This is evident from what Novartis said: “We were already on a journey in terms of our commercial model where digital and other channels and virtual detailing were becoming a bigger part of our mix.” The Company is planning an omnichannel digital launch for its latest new product – Tabrecta for metastatic lung cancer. This was prompted by the very sensitive situation that the world is going through ‘and the extra burden that’s put-on physicians and patients” as the pandemic continues - the company clarified.

This leads to the key question, are most companies on the same wavelength as Novartis, in this area? Or, a large majority of drug players, is still nurturing the hope that prescription demand generation activity from doctors and hospitals will soon return to the traditional mode of what was prevailing during pre-Covid-19 pandemic days? This flows from an age-old experience – a large number of sales or medical representatives have always spearheaded the demand generation mechanism for any patented or brand-generic medicine.

Still, for many it is difficult to even think of any quantum shift in this space, as the traditional core mechanism continues, despite so much hype of digitalizing pharma operations. Whereas, several others do feel, at least, a Covid-19 vaccine or a drug for its effective treatment, which, apparently, are almost knocking at the door, will bring the current situation back to the previous normal. Will vaccine or an effective drug be a panacea to win the war of Covid-19 pandemic, decisively? In this article, I shall dwell on this subject. To set the ball rolling, let us fathom whether or not coming out with a safe and effective Covid-19 vaccine, in a jiffy, is rather a certainty.

Is Covid-19 vaccine a certainty?

No doubt, a large majority of people believe, a vaccine to prevent COVID-19 is perhaps the best hope for ending the pandemic, as Mayo Clinic has also said so. However, it also records the following major apprehensions or challenges in developing a COVID-19 vaccine, based on the research data:

  • Ensuring vaccine safety
  • Providing long-term protection
  • Protecting older people

On May 12, 2020, at the US Senate hearing about the path forward from pandemic lockdowns in the United States, NIAID director Anthony Fauci also said, there’s “no guarantee” any of the vaccines in testing will be effective, though based on his knowledge of other viruses, he is “cautiously optimistic.” Thus, projections about how COVID-19 will play out, are still mostly speculative.

Why ‘projections about how COVID-19 will play out are still speculative’?

A recent article – ‘How the COVID-19 Pandemic Could End,’ published in the ‘Scientific American,’ also commented so. It said, the end game will most likely involve a mix of everything that checked past pandemics:

  • Continued social-control measures to buy time,
  • New antiviral medications to ease symptoms,
  • And a vaccine.

Citing the famous example of the H1N1 influenza outbreak of 1918–1919, it said, doctors and public health officials had far fewer weapons than they do today. Thus, the effectiveness of control measures, such as school closures depended on how early and decisively, they were implemented. Over two years and three waves, the pandemic infected 500 million and killed between 50 million and 100 million. It ended only as natural infections conferred immunity on those who recovered.

Which is why, as on date the pursuit to achieve all three goals as mentioned above, would likely to continue. That said, a safe an effective Covid-19 vaccine will be the most preferred way to stop rapid transmission of the Coronavirus outbreak. However, this comes with a critical caveat.

Would the entire population need to be vaccinated?

Experts believe, unless a vaccine is administered to all of the world’s eight billion inhabitants who are not currently sick or recovered, COVID-19 is likely to become endemic. It will circulate and make people sick seasonally—sometimes very sick. But if the virus stays in the human population long enough, it will start to infect children, showing mild symptoms.

In that process, children appear less likely to develop severe disease if they get re-infected as adults.  Thus, the combination of vaccination and natural immunity will protect many of us. ‘The Coronavirus, like most viruses, will live on—but not as a planetary plague,’ the ‘Scientific American,’ article concluded.

Covid-19 end game to involve a mix of those that checked past pandemics:

Let us now look at the possible mix of the Covid-19 end game, which were involved in checking the past pandemics, one by one:

Continued social-control measures to buy time:

The social control measures would include compliance with the prescribed social distancing norms, in tandem with aggressive testing for the infected individuals, isolating them, and quarantining their contacts. These measures were well tested in the past epidemics and useful if followed well, by all.

Therefore, from the pharma industry perspective, getting back to the traditional ‘pre Covid-19 mode’ of prescription demand generation mechanism, will indeed be challenging for most drug players.

Availability of well-tested antiviral medications to ease Covid-19 symptoms:

So far, there is no scientifically and well-tested medications for the treatment of Covid-19. However, many different medications are under clinical trials in various parts of the world. So far, most hyped among them appears to be remdesivir, an experimental antiviral developed by Gilead for the treatment of Ebola.

However, the clinical study result of ‘Remdesivir in adults with severe COVID-19,’ published in The Lancet on April 29, 2020 found that the dose regimen of intravenous remdesivir used in the study, was adequately tolerated, but did not provide significant clinical or antiviral effects in seriously ill patients with COVID-19.

The World Health Organization (WHO) also, reportedly, announced a large global trial, called ‘Solidarity’, to find out whether any of those drugs can treat infections with the Covid-19. In India, several drug companies are also testing the water, with their shortlisted drugs, such as, Zydus Cadila want to test a form of interferon, usually used against hepatitis B and C, as a potential treatment for COVID-19. More trials on remdesivir are ongoing, let us keep our fingers crossed.

Interestingly, Gilead has, reportedly, signed nonexclusive licensing agreements with five Indian generic drug makers – Cipla, Mylan, Ferozsons Laboratories, Hetero Labs and Jubilant Lifesciences,  to produce COVID-19 therapy remdesivir for low- and lower-middle income countries. Under the agreements, Gilead will share its manufacturing know-how with them to help gear up remdesivir local production. Moreover, each of these companies will be allowed to set the price for its own generic version of the drug.

In any case, scientifically proven safety and efficacy of any drug or vaccine for the prevention or treatment of Covid-19, is yet to be known. Hence, for all individuals, strict compliance with social distancing measures is the only way to avoid this highly contagious infection. The same is also applicable to doctors and sales representatives while working in the field, at least, till an effective Covid-19 vaccine or drug comes.

Affordability and access to Covid-19 drug and vaccine:  

Assuming that a safe, effective and clinically proven vaccine or a drug for Covid-19 will be available sooner than what experts anticipate now, yet another critical issue needs to be resolved, soon. This is related to their affordability and access, to contain the mortality and morbidity of the disease, for a vast majority of the population, especially in the developing nations, like India.

Even Gavi noted: ‘In the race to produce a safe and effective vaccine against the COVID-19 virus, one of the many challenges will be the cost of developing the vaccine and eventually getting it to the vast number of people worldwide who will need it.’ However, it is generally anticipated that ‘COVID-19 vaccine or a drug may end up costing people a small fortune.’ Another article also echoed the same sentiment by saying, ‘Covid-19 treatments won’t work if people can’t afford them.

However, India’s Serum Institute based at Pune, has announced that it is ready for 20-40 million vaccine shots at Rs 1,000/dose, by September-October 2020. The company is ‘’putting its weight behind an Oxford University-led consortium, which announced the start of human clinical trials on April 23 and is one of the first such projects to get underway globally.’

At the same time, another report emphasized: “Even after India approves the Coronavirus vaccine, it might not be possible to produce more than 10-20 million doses in the first year,” again raising the availability and access issue for a Covid-19 vaccine, as and when available in India.

Conclusion:

As on May 17, 2020 morning, the recorded Coronavirus cases continue to climb sharply to 90,927 with 2,872 deaths.. Moreover, on May 13, 2020, the world Health organization has also warned that “this virus may become just another endemic virus in our communities, and this virus may never go away.” Thus, the world has to live with it. By the way, the accuracy of many Covid-19 test kits has also been widely questioned. This reportedly includes speedy Abbott test, as well.

In this scenario, people may have to necessary live with social distancing norms and the practice of wearing a mask outside the home, always. Besides, the template for relief from Covid-19 becomes more complex, particularly considering availability, affordability and access to a safe and effective drug or vaccine in India, as and when these will come. Taking these together, the end game for Covid-19 in the foreseeable future, becomes anybody’s guess.

Coming back to the pharma industry, curiously, some people are still hoping for ‘business as usual’ in the traditional pre-Covid-19 mode, although the writing on the wall is increasingly getting clearer. The only alternative that people can possibly follow under the circumstances, is strict compliance to social distancing norms, which pharma companies, doctors, healthcare consumers and others would also require to adhere to, with as much earnest. Thus, envisaging a return to pre-Covid-19 prescription generation mode, may not be prudent choice, anymore.

By: Tapan J. Ray   

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

Why Many Successful CEOs Don’t Want to Retire – in Pharma Too?

Posted on by
Reply

“On Eve of Retirement, Jack Welch Decides to Stick Around GE a Bit,” reported the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) on October 23, 2000. Nevertheless, even the legendary Jack Welsh was made no exception to GE’s mandatory retirement policy for the CEO at 65. After holding the position of Chairman and CEO of GE for 20 years – with stellar performances, Welsh had to retire on September 07, 2001, as he attained that age.

This happened almost immediately after the US$ 45 billion merger with Honeywell. Welsh spearheaded this initiative, intending to create one of the world’s largest industrial companies, with manufacturing operations in plastics, chemicals and aerospace products, at that time. It’s a different matter altogether that later on, the report onThe Anatomy of the GE-Honeywell Disaster narrated a different reality on the consequences of this acquisition.

The key point to ponder – why many successful CEOs don’t want to easily retire, passing on the baton to a younger generation, unless directly or indirectly compelled by the investors or the regulators. In this article, I shall try to explore this point.

Many older CEOs not eager to head into retirement:

While discussing a similar point, an article titled: “For older CEOs, the issue is knowing when to bow out,” published in the USA Today on April 19, 2016, made some interesting observations. It said: “Just as older employees stay in jobs out of desire or necessity, some of those occupying the C-suite aren’t eager to head into retirement.”

According to a survey done by Korn Ferry among Fortune 500 CEOs, over the past decade:

  • The number of CEOs with age between 65 and 60 years, nearly doubled to 36.
  • Those with age between 70 and 74 increased from 9 to 13.

Korn Ferry also found in another survey that CEOs are the oldest and longest-tenured individuals compared with other prominent C-suite roles. Some of the oldest and famous global CEO names would include, Warren Buffett – 85 years of Berkshire Hathaway and Rupert Murdoch – also aged 85 years and is the Executive Chairman of News Corp. and Twenty-First Century Fox.

A couple of Indian examples of large Indian business conglomerates would include, A. M. Naik (born on June 09, 1942) who served as the Group Executive Chairman of L&T even at the age of 75 and the other – Y.V. Yogeshwar (born on February 04, 1947) was at the helm as the Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at ITC Ltd till February 4, 2017, at the age of 70. More recently, on October 22, 2018, the Reserve Bank of India accorded its approval for reappointment of Mr. Aditya Puri as its MD & CEO of HDFC Bank Ltd. till October 26, 2020 – the date of his attaining age of 70 years.

What’s happening in the pharma industry?

The pharma industry too is no different. For example, Merck & Co’s distinguished top leader – Kenneth Frazier, who turns 65 on December 2019, will stay on as CEO beyond 2019. This was reported on September 26, 2018 stating that Merck has scrapped the policy requiring its CEO to retire at the age of 65. Curiously, this announcement is quite unlike what we witnessed in a similar case with GE where no exception made to the CEO retirement policy even for someone as globally famous as Jack Welsh.

Another recent example from the pharma industry, would possibly include one more celebrated pharma CEO – Abbott’s Miles White. He is currently at 63 and in his 20th year as the Chairman and Chief Executive of Abbott Laboratories. Just as Merck & Co, Abbott also announced that White doesn’t have any plans to leave his position as Chairman and CEO “anytime soon.” This happened, after the appointment of company’s President and Chief Operating Officer (COO), which is the first official No. 2 executive and COO Abbott happening after more than a decade, as reported on October 18, 2018.

A couple of similar examples from India that I gathered from the available data, may include: Pankaj Patel, 67 years (born 1951), the Executive Chairman of Cadila Healthcare and Basudeo Narain Singh,  reportedly 77 years of age, currently the Executive Chairman at Alkem Laboratories Ltd. Let me hasten to add, these names are absolutely illustrative, and not intended to be specific to individuals, in any way.

All publicly listed companies and not privately held:

The companies that I have quoted above, both global and local, are publicly listed companies. Thus, their ownership is dispersed among the general public in many shares of stock, which are freely traded on a stock exchange, or in over the counter markets. In view of this, the general questions come up:

  • Why the incumbent CEO can’t develop a successor from within or even outside the company during his/her tenure spanning over so many years?
  • Is there any other underlying reason for the same? If so, what it is?

Not considering the country-heads of MNCs in India:

Let me admit upfront with all due respect, for the purpose of this discussion, I am not considering the country-heads of pharma MNCs in India. This is mainly because, they don’t fall in the same category as the CEOs of Indian publicly listed pharma companies, having much broader global responsibility, commensurate authority and accountability.

At the most, the country heads of pharma MNCs may be compared with those managers who are in charge of only India, or South Asia operations of the domestic pharma players. Which is why, country heads of MNCs are commonly called ‘General Managers’ – internally, especially by their respective headquarters.

Is mandatory CEO retirement policy a good idea?

There are many studies on whether a mandatory CEO retirement policy is a good idea. I shall quote below one such important study to illustrate the point.

‘Should Older CEOs Be Forced to Retire?’ That’s the title of an article, published in the Harvard Business Review (HBR) on February 15, 2016. The author found that more than a third of S&P 500 firms have a mandatory retirement policy for their CEOs. The aim is to drive out executives who are past their prime. In the overall perspective, the HBR article is in sync with the idea.

Referring to a research paper recently published in the Journal of Empirical Finance, the above article highlighted some important findings of the researchers, as below:

  • Older CEOs were less “active,” as measured by a mix of hiring, firing, mergers, joint ventures, and more.
  • Mandatory retirement helped firms avoid the declining performance associated with older CEOs.
  • The negative correlation between CEO age and firm performance disappeared in companies with mandatory CEO retirement policies.
  • Mandatory retirement seemed to be helping firms with older CEOs to avoid the under-performance trap.
  • Length of CEOs’ executive experience plays a great role in a company’s financial success.
  • When there are two CEO candidates, both having requisite experience of equal number of years, the data suggests the younger one should be preferred.
  • Conversely, when there are two CEO candidates of the same age, bet on the one who’s been with the firm longer.

Should CEO retire at the peak of his/her golden era? 

This issue seems to be a contentious one. Be that as it may, about one third of S&P 500 firms have mandatory retirement policies for their CEOs. The goal is to systematically let go of leaders who are past their peak performance years.

An article published in The Washington Post on September 27, 2018 came with a headline: ‘Fewer companies are forcing CEOs to retire when they hit their golden years.’ It observed: ‘Sometimes a mandatory retirement age is lifted to give the current chief executive a little more time on the job, potentially clearing the way for a successor to prepare. For instance, in June 2017, manufacturing giant 3M said its board of directors was waiving the mandatory retirement age of 65 for its then-CEO, Inge Thulin, and then named a successor, chief operating officer Michael Roman, earlier this year.’

While retirement norms may be shifting, there’s seems to be a trend of indirect pressure on companies to add younger executives and directors to the board. This is primarily prompted by a growing demand for digital insights and technology experience in the CEO position – commented another article published in the Los Angeles Times on September 28, 2018. It also reported, many experts on corporate governance and executive succession believe that rescinding its policy requiring the CEO to retire at the age of 65, Merck & Co, ‘added to a long downward trend in the companies that have mandatory retirement ages for their top executives.’

Conclusion:

Regardless of whether a mandatory CEO retirement policy is a good idea or not, the aging high performing CEO’s desire to continue with the job for an indefinite period, has some downsides. It could thwart aspiration of similar high performing younger direct reports of the CEO. They include especially those who are ready to take charge and catapult the organization to a greater height of success, sooner.

A CEO’s desire to continue with the job, even after a generally accepted age of retirement, could also adversely impact a well-charted succession planning process for the top position. A time-bound succession plan is essential not only for a natural and smooth transition in the CEO position of an organization, but also to address any unforeseen emergency, such as a ‘drop dead like situation.’

Further, if there is no mandatory CEO retirement policy, or even rescinding it when there is one for a high a performing CEO, why there should be such policy for other C-suite, or many other important leadership positions of the same organization, with similar performance records?

One of the reasons behind a high performing aging CEO or an Executive Chairman not wanting to retire may also include the intent of the Board members to play safe. Nevertheless, it is a complicated and contentious issue. Regardless of whatever reasons lead to such a situation, the point to ponder is: What signal does it send to other high performing leaders? Does it convey, even the CEO is governed by similar policies as applied to other leaders of the corporation? Or, it smacks of a a discretionary corporate culture of governance? There is a need to ferret out a robust answer to this question – for a long-term sustainable success of any organization, including pharma.

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.

“Kickbacks And Bribes Oil Every Part of India’s Healthcare Machinery” – A National Shame?

Posted on by
Reply

“Corruption ruins the doctor-patient relationship in India” - highlights an article published in the well-reputed British Medical Journal (BMJ) on 08 May 2014. The author David Berger wrote, “Kickbacks and bribes oil every part of the country’s healthcare machinery and if India’s authorities cannot make improvements, international agencies should act.”

The author reiterated the much known facts that the latest in technological medicine is available only to those people who can pay for its high price. However, the vast majority of the population has little or no access to healthcare, and whatever access they have is mostly limited to substandard government care or to quacks, which seem to operate with near impunity. He further points out that “Corruption is rife at all levels, from the richest to the poorest”. It is a common complaint both from the poor and the middle class that they don’t trust their doctors from the core of hearts. They don’t trust them to be competent or to be honest, and live in fear of having to consult them, which results in high levels of doctor shopping.

Dr. Berger also deliberated on the widespread corruption in the pharmaceutical industry, with doctors bribed to prescribe particular drugs. Common stories usually doing the rounds that the decision makers in the hospitals are being given top of the range cars and other inducements when their hospitals sign contracts to prescribe particular expensive drugs preferentially.

The article does not fail to mention that many Indian doctors do have huge expertise, are honorable and treat their patients well. However, as a group, doctors generally have a poor reputation.

Until the profession along with the pharma industry is prepared to tackle this malady head-on and acknowledge the corrosive effects of medical corruption, the doctor-patient relationship will continue to lie in tatters, the paper says.

The saga continues through decades – unabated:

The above worrying situation in the space of medical treatment in India refuses to die down and continues since decades.

The article published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) over a decade ago, on January 04, 2003 vindicates this point, when it brings to the fore, “Health care is among the most corrupt services in India”.

This article was based on a survey released by the India office of the international non-governmental organization ‘Transparency International’. At that time, it ranked India as one of the 30 most corrupt countries in the world. The study covered 10 sectors with a direct bearing on people’s lives, where the respondents rated the police as the most corrupt sector, closely followed by healthcare.

Medical Council of India (MCI) is responsible for enforcing the regulations on medical profession. Unfortunately, the MCI itself is riddled with corruption, fueled by the vested interests. As the first BMJ article indicates,   Subsequently, there has been controversy over the surprise removal, on the day India was declared polio-free, of the health secretary Keshav Desirajus, possibly in response to his resistance to moves to reappoint Desai to the reconstituted MCI.

Another point to ponder: Quality of Doctor – MR interactions

It is a well-established fact that the ethics, values and belief in pharmaceutical sales and marketing are primarily derived from the ethics, values and belief of the concerned organization.  Field staff systems, compliance, accountability, belief, value and culture also flow from these fundamentals. Thus, considering the comments made in the BMJ on the pharma companies, in general, let me now also deliberate on the desired roles of the Medical Representatives (MR) in this area.

It is well known that MRs of the pharma players exert significant influence on the prescribing practices of the doctors and changing their prescribing patterns too. At the same time, this is also equally true that for a vast majority of, especially, the General Practitioners (GPs), MRs are the key source of information for various drugs. In tandem, several research studies also indicate that doctors, by and large, believe that pharma companies unduly influence them.

Theoretically, MRs should be properly trained to convey to the target doctors the overall profile – the efficacy, safety, utility, precautions and contra-indications of their respective products. Interestingly, the MRs are trained by the respective pharma companies primarily to alter the prescribing habits of the target doctors with information heavily biased in favor of their own drugs.

As a result, range of safety, precautions and contra-indications of the products are seldom discussed, if not totally avoided, putting patients at risks by creating an unwarranted product bias, especially among GPs, who depend mainly on MRs for product information. Thus, the quality of product communication is mainly focused on benefits rather than holistic – covering all intrinsic merits/demerits of the respective brands in a professional manner.

Considering the importance of detailing in delivering the complete product information primarily to the GPs, there is a critical need for the pharma companies to train and equip the MRs with a complete detailing message and yet be successful in winning the doctors’ support.

This issue also needs to be properly addressed for the interest of patients.

“Means” to achieve the goal need to change: 

Globally, including India, many pharma players have not been questioned, as yet, just not on the means of their meeting the financial goals, but also the practices they follow for the doctors. These often include classifying the physicians based on the value of their prescriptions for the specific products. Accordingly, MRs are trained to adopt the respective companies’ prescribed ‘means’ to influence those doctors for creating a desirable prescription demand. These wide array of so-called ‘means’, as many argue, lead to alleged ‘bribery’/’kickbacks’ and other malpractices both at the doctors’ and also at the pharma companies’ end.

To address this issue, after the Chinese episode, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has reportedly announced that by the start of 2016 it will stop paying doctors to speak on its behalf or to attend conferences, to end undue influence on prescribers.

The announcement also indicated that GSK has planned to remove individual sales targets from its sales force. This means that MRs would no longer be paid according to the number of prescriptions they solicited from the doctors met by them.

Instead, GSK introduced a new performance related scheme that will reward the MRs for their technical knowledge, the quality of the service they deliver to support improved care of patients, and the overall performance of GSK’s business. The scheme is expected to start in some countries effective January 2014 and be in place globally by early 2015.

Further, GSK underscored that the latest changes were “designed to bring greater clarity and confidence that whenever we talk to a doctor, nurse, or other prescriber, it is patients’ interests that always come first.”

This is indeed a refreshing development for others to imbibe, even in India.

Capturing an Indian Example:

Just to cite an example, a couple of years ago Reuters in an article titled “In India, gift-giving drives drug makers’ marketing” reported that a coffee maker, cookware and vacuum cleaner, were among the many gifts for doctors listed in an Abbott Healthcare sales-strategy guide for the second quarter of 2011 in India, a copy of which was reviewed by Reuters.

It is interesting to note from the report, even for an antibiotic like Nupod (Cefpodoxime), doctors who pledge to prescribe Abbott’s branded drugs, or who’ve already prescribed certain amounts, can expect some of these items in return, the report mentioned.

Since decades, media reports have highlighted many more of such instances. Unfortunately, the concerned government authorities in India refused to wake-up from the deep slumber, despite the alleged ruckus spreading like a wild fire.

Self-regulation by the industry ineffective:

This menace, though more intense in India, is certainly not confined to the shores of this country. As we all know, many constituents of Big Pharma have already been implicated in the mega pharma bribery scandal in China.

Many international pharmaceutical trade associations, which are primarily the lobbying bodies, are the strong votaries of self-regulations by the industry. They have also created many documents in these regards since quite some time and displayed those in their respective websites. However, despite all these the ground reality is, the charted path of well-hyped self-regulation by the industry to stop this malaise is not working.

The following are just a few recent examples to help fathom the enormity of the problem and also to vindicate the above point:

  • In March 2014, the antitrust regulator of Italy reportedly fined two Swiss drug majors, Novartis and Roche 182.5 million euros (U$ 251 million) for allegedly blocking distribution of Roche’s Avastin cancer drug in favor of a more expensive drug Lucentis that the two companies market jointly for an eye disorder.
  • Just before this, in the same month of March 2014, it was reported that a German court had fined 28 million euro (US$ 39 million) to the French pharma major Sanofi and convicted two of its former employees on bribery charges.
  • In November 2013, Teva Pharmaceutical reportedly said that an internal investigation turned up suspect practices in countries ranging from Latin America to Russia.
  • In May 2013, Sanofi was reportedly fined US$ 52.8 Million by the French competition regulator for trying to limit sales of generic versions of the company’s Plavix.
  • In August 2012, Pfizer Inc. was reportedly fined US$ 60.2 million by the US Securities and Exchange Commission to settle a federal investigation on alleged bribing of overseas doctors and other health officials to prescribe medicines.
  • In April 2012, a judge in Arkansas, US, reportedly fined Johnson & Johnson and a subsidiary more than US$1.2 billion after a jury found that the companies had minimized or concealed the dangers associated with an antipsychotic drug.

Pricing is also another important area where the issue of both ethics and compliance to drug regulations come in. The key question continues to remain, whether the essential drugs, besides the patented ones, are priced in a manner that they can serve the needs of majority of patients in India. I have deliberated a part of this important issue in my earlier blog post titled “Is The New Market Based Pricing Model Fundamentally Flawed?”

There are many more of such examples.

Stakeholders’ anguish:

Deep anguish of the stakeholders over this issue is now being increasingly reverberated on every passing day in India, as it were. It had also drawn the attention of the patients’ groups, NGOs, media, Government, Planning Commission and even the Parliament.

The Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare in its 58th Report strongly indicted the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) on this score. It observed that the DoP should take prompt action in making the ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’ mandatory so that effective checks and balances could be brought-in on ‘huge promotional costs and the resultant add-on impact on medicine prices’.

Despite deplorable inaction by the erstwhile Government on the subject, frequent reporting by Indian media has triggered a national debate on this issue. A related Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is also now pending before the Supreme Court for hearing in the near future. Its judicial verdict is expected to usher in a breath of fresh air around a rather stifling environment for the patients.

Let us now wait and see what action the new minister of the Modi Government takes on this issue.

A prescription for change:

Very recently, Dr. Samiran Nundy, Chairman of the Department of Surgical Gastroenterology and Organ Transplantation at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Current Medicine Research and Practice, has reportedly exposed the widespread (mal) practices of doctors in India taking cuts for referrals and prescribing unnecessary drugs, investigations and procedures for profit.

Dr. Nundy suggested that to begin with, “The Medical Council of India (MCI), currently an exclusive club of doctors, has to be reconstituted. Half the members must be lay people like teachers, social workers and patient groups like the General Medical Council in Britain where, if a doctor is found to be corrupt, he is booted out by the council.”

Conclusion:

Efforts are now being made in India by some stakeholders to declare all malpractices related to pharma industry illegal through enactment of appropriate robust laws and regulations, attracting exemplary punishments to the perpetrators.

However, enforcement of MCI Guidelines for the doctors and initiatives towards enactment of suitable laws/regulations for the pharma industry, like for example, the ‘Physician Payments Sunshine Act’ of the United States, have so far been muted by the vested interests.

If the new Modi government too, does not swing into visible action forthwith, this saga of international disrepute, corruption and collusion in the healthcare space of India would continue in India, albeit with increasing vigor and probably in perpetuity. This would, undoubtedly, sacrifice the interest of patients at the altar of excessive greed and want of the vested interests.

This new government, as most people believe, has both the will and wherewithal to hold this raging mad bull of pharma malpractices by the horn, ensuring a great relief and long awaited justice 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. 

Big Pharma: Now A ‘Chink in Its Armor’?

Posted on by
Reply

Emerging trends bring to the fore a possible ‘Chink in the Armor’ of the ‘Big Pharma’, despite a number of recent belligerent moves.

One such move I had deliberated in my earlier blog post. There I mentioned that 2014 report on ‘International Intellectual Property (IP) Index’ of the US Chamber of Commerce’s Global Intellectual Property Centre (GIPC) highlights India’s featuring at the bottom of 25 countries on Intellectual Property (IP) protection. Accordingly, the US Chamber having put forth a set of recommendations reportedly urged the US Trade Representive (USTR) to classify India as a ‘Priority Foreign Country’. This nomenclature is usually attributed to the worst offenders of ‘Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)’, which could culminate into trade sanctions.

The move attempts to dissociate IPR from ‘access to medicines’:

Though the methodology and alleged biases of this report were the topics of raging debates, according to USTR, this move of the US Chamber of Commerce is reportedly just against the IP regime in India and ‘not about access to medicines.’

This clarification is indeed bizarre, as most of the issues related to creation of intense political pressure from overseas for stringent IP regime in a country, such as India, revolve around access to patented medicines. The twin issue of IP and ‘access to patented medicines’ can hardly be separated.

Same old contentious example of ‘Glivec Access Program’:

The example of ‘Glivec Access Program’ does not appear to have many takers within the experts either for well-argued reasons.

Even then, to substantiate the point that the IP issues in India are not related to ‘access to patented medicines’, the US Chamber of Commerce states, yet again:

“In the case of Glivec, Novartis provided the leukemia drug to 95 per cent of patient population for free. The annual cost for Glivec generic treatment is approximately three to for times the average annual income in India”.

It is worth noting that the Swiss drug-maker Novartis reportedly gave the same example while defending the patent protections of Glivec before the Supreme Court without success. The apex judiciary ultimately dismissed the case last year.

Post Glivec judgment, the same ‘patient access program’ was debates in television programs too. However, its relevance for enhancing access could not be established in either of these two high profile public deliberations, as there were hardly any takers.

That said, I do not have any inkling, whether the protagonists of this much-touted “Glivec Access Program” would at anytime, in future, be able to establish their claim beyond any reasonable doubt that, ‘95 percent of the total patients population suffering from chronic myeloid leukemia receive Glivec free of cost from Novartis’.

Visible ‘Chink in its Armor’:

Not so long ago, Global CEO of Bayer reportedly proclaimed in public that:

“Bayer didn’t develop its cancer drug, Nexavar (sorafenib) for India but for Western Patients that can afford it.”

In tandem various other tough uttering, well crafted by the global communication agencies of ‘Big Pharma’, followed on the same IPR related issues, projecting its tough monolithic dimension.

However, after keenly watching a good number of much contentious moves being taken on IP and various other related areas by its lobby groups, both in India and overseas, it appears that all constituents of the ‘Big Pharma’ are not on the same page for all these issues, clearly exposing the ‘Chink in its Armor’, as it were.

Let me now give some examples, spanning across various issues, to vindicate this point:

I. Differences on ‘public disclosure of all Clinical Trial data’:

As discussed in my blog post earlier, The Guardian reported an incident on the above issue in July 2013. The article stated that the global pharmaceutical industry has “mobilized” an army of patient groups to lobby against the plan of European Medicines Agency (EMA) to force pharma companies publishing all Clinical Trial (CT) results in a public database for patients’ interest.

Important global pharma industry associations strongly resisted to this plan. The report indicated that a leaked letter from two large pharma trade associations, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) of the United States and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), had drawn out the above strategy to combat this move of EMA.

The Chink:

However despite this grand strategy, some constituents of Big Pharma, such as, Abbott, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Johnson & Johnson decided to disclose the results of all applicable/covered clinical trials, regardless of outcome, in a publicly accessible clinical trials results database.

II. Differences on ‘leaked pharma lobbying plan against South African draft IP Policy’:

February 3, 2014 issue of ‘The Lancet’ states, among other issues, the draft IP policy of South Africa seeks to address patent ever-greening, a contentious strategy in which drug firms tweak formulations to extend the 20-year life of a patent.

The leaked 9 page document of the PR firm, Public Affairs Engagement (PAE), titled, ‘Campaign to Prevent Damage to Innovation from the Proposed Draft National IP Policy in South Africa’, was reportedly prepared for ‘Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)’ based at Washington DC and the lobby group representing research-based pharmaceutical companies in South Africa – ‘Innovative Pharmaceuticals Association of South Africa (IPASA)’.

The Chink:

As deliberated in my earlier blog post, when the above lobbying plan was leaked out, Swiss drug maker Roche and Denmark’s Novo-Nordisk reportedly resigned from the IPASA. Both the companies said that neither do they support this campaign nor have they given any approval to it and hence they are resigning from IPASA. However, the above report quoting IPASA states, “IPASA maintains that the departure of Roche and Novo-Nordisk did not weaken the association’s position.”

III. Other recent major differences within ‘Big Pharma’ constituents:

The Chink:

A. Merck Sereno:

Indian pharma regime may appear to be not encouraging or protecting innovation to the US Chamber of commerce, but one of the oldest constituents of the ‘Big Pharma’ – Merck Sereno has reportedly articulated quite a different take on this score.

In an interview to ‘The Economic Times’, Stefan Oschmann, member of the executive board and CEO, Merck, Germany made some very important observations on:

Patentability:

“Some of the strategies used in the past were developing 20 products and slightly differentiating them. That doesn’t work anymore. This industry has to do its home work.” He added that it makes little sense to adopt a confrontationist attitude towards sensitive issues.

Access:

Oschmann said, “Companies are rightly or wrongly criticized in spending all their money on 20 percent of the richest people of the world and neglecting the rest of the population. This is changing.”

Pricing:

He would not criticize governments such as India for trying to protect consumers from spiraling health-care costs. “Pricing and tier-pricing are worth looking into”.

Governments across emerging markets have been trying to find a way to the same challenges of increasing access to affordable healthcare. Oschmann feels, “This is legitimate to any government. What matters is rules are transparent, fair and non-discriminatory. Rules shouldn’t be used as a tool for industrial policy to only foster local industry.”

Another Chink:

B. GlaxoSmithKline:

Another icon in the global pharmaceutical industry Sir Andrew Witty, the CEO of GlaxoSmithKline, reportedly commented a few months ago on the following, with a pragmatic approach to the situation:

Pricing:

“I think it is wholly reasonable for a country that is having a tremendous growth with challenges has to think about pricing. I don’t think that it is a ridiculous proposition. Of course it hurts the period you go through that price adjustments, there are alternative ways to achieve and having a good dialogue may create positive ways to do it.”

Patented medicines:

“I am not one of those CEOs who is gonna stand here and say that you have to have a same approach as you have in other country. India is a very unusual country. It starts from different place than a Britain or a France or a USA, therefore we have to think about what is the right way for India to balance its needs.”

IP:

Sir Andrew emphasized, “And the key to that isn’t to get rid of patents; the key to that is to fix the R&D and manufacturing processes. And that’s what we’ve got to realize in the world we are going to be living in the next 30 or 40 years; companies cannot just turn up and have any price they want. Companies will have to come with a competitive and efficient business model, which will bring real innovation to the people.”

Conclusion: 

Culling all these important developments together, while traveling back in recent times, it does appear, whether the issues are on IP, access or even pricing of medicines, seemingly overpowering might (or may just be simple bullying tactics) of US Chamber of commerce is drowning some very important ‘Big Pharma’ constituents’ voices and numbing many others, despite a visible ‘Chink in its Armor’.

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 We Taking Safe and Effective Medicines?

Posted on by
Reply

The above headline is in no way intended to mean that this discussion is on spurious or counterfeit drugs.

Today’s deliberation is on the licensed drugs, which are manufactured in India, for the patients of the country, by the manufacturers holding valid drug licenses from the Indian regulators.

Close on the heels of my article titled, “USFDA ‘Import Bans’: The Malady Calls For Strong Bitter Pills “, another equally serious incident related to drug safety, came to the fore.

Fabricated data from the Contract Manufacturer of large companies:

On November 12, 2013, the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) was quoted saying that the investigative team of the drug regulator concluded that all the data submitted by Puducherry-based contract drug manufacturer GuruFcure, while seeking approval for manufacturing seven fixed dose combination drugs, are ‘fabricated’ and not ‘authentic’.

GuruFcure, which started operations in 2007 and calls itself “one of the leading pharmaceutical formulation manufacturers in India”, reportedly manufacture drugs for the leading pharma MNC and Indian companies and Indian companies such as:

  • Abbott
  • Alkem
  • Glenmark
  • Wockhardt
  • Unichem
  • Intas Pharma, among others.

Though, as per media report, Wockhardt and Glenmark said that these two companies are not currently associated with GuruFcure, the fact remains that they did market drugs produced by this contract manufacture in the past and the patients consumed those drugs against doctors’ precriptions.

 Large players need to set examples:

The largest pharmaceutical company in India with highest share of the Indian Pharmaceutical Market – Abbott, has also been reported to get some of their drugs manufactured by this contract manufacturer.

 Not a solitary example:

Just prior to this incident, in November 8, 2013, the DCGI reportedly ordered the Indian pharma major Sun Pharmaceuticals to suspend clinical research activities at its Mumbai based bio-analytical laboratory, after discovering that the company does not have the requisite approval from the central government for operating the laboratory. The DCGI has decided not to accept future applications and will not process existing new drug filings that Sun Pharma has made from the Mumbai laboratory until the company gets an approval.

Tardy regulatory system fuels apprehensions:

In India, many large, medium and small units get their products from the contract drug manufacturers. As compared to the USFDA inspection data, there are virtually no public data available on the details of inspections carried out at these plants by the drug regulators indicating the level of cGMP compliance.

Health being a state subject in India, State Drug Controllers should play a critical role in ensuring drug safety for patients through regular inspection of these manufacturing facilities on cGMP compliance.

Conclusion:

If cGMP violations can take place for drug exports, despite rigorous compliance checks by the foreign drug regulators, what could possibly happen when the same system is so tardy in India?

While the MNCs boast on their highest drug regulatory compliance standards, even for contract manufacturers, why do they keep relationships with those getting caught for fraudulent practices, is equally difficult to fathom.

One may possibly describe such incidents as just aberrations. However, that conclusion can only be drawn, when we have Drug Controllers’ cGMP inspection data for a large number of drug manufacturing units in India with details. Unfortunately, that is not the case, in any way.

In such an environment in India, the moot question that comes at the top of mind, “Are we taking safe and effective drugs, whenever required?”

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 FDI: Damning Report of Parliamentary Panel, PM Vetoes…and Avoids Ruffling Feathers?

Posted on by
Reply

An interesting situation emerged last week. The Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) on Commerce proposed a blanket ban on all FDI in brownfield pharma sector. Just two days after that, the Prime Minister of India vetoed the joint opposition of the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) and the Ministry of Health to clear the way for all pending pharma FDIs under the current policy.

On August 13, 2013, Department related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce laid on the Table of both the Houses of the Indian Parliament its 154 pages Report on ‘FDI in Pharmaceutical Sector.’

The damning report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee flags several serious concerns over FDI in brownfield pharma sector, which include, among others, the following:

1. Out of 67 FDI investments till September 2011, only one has been in green field, while all the remaining FDI has come in the brown field projects. Moreover, FDI in brown field investments have of late been predominantly used to acquire the domestic pharma companies.

2. Shift of ownership of Indian generic companies to the MNCs also results in significant change of the business model, including the marketing strategy of the acquired entity, which are quite in sync with the same of the acquirer company. In this situation, the acquired entity will not be allowed to use flexibilities such as patent challenges or compulsory license to introduce new affordable generic medicines.

The withdrawal of all patent challenges by Ranbaxy on Pfizer’s blockbuster medicine Lipitor filed in more than eight countries immediately after its acquisition by Daiichi-Sankyo is a case in point.

3. Serial acquisitions of the Indian generic companies by the MNCs will have significant impact on competition, price level and availability. The price difference between Indian ‘generics’ and MNCs’ ‘branded generic’ drugs could  sometimes be as high as 80 to 85 times. A few more larger scale brownfield takeovers may even destroy all the benefits of India’s generics revolution.

4. FDI inflow into Research & Development of the Pharma Industry has been totally unsatisfactory. 

5. FDI flow into brown field projects has not added any significant fresh capacity in manufacturing, distribution network or asset creation. Over last 15 years, MNCs have contributed only 5 per cent of the gross fixed assets creation, that is Rs 3,022 crore against Rs 54,010 crore by the domestic companies. Further, through brownfield acquisitions significant strides have not been made by the MNCs, as yet, for new job creation and technology transfer in the country.

6. Once a foreign company takes over an Indian company, it gets the marketing network of the major Indian companies and, through that network, it changes the product mix and pushes the products, which are more profitable and expensive. There is no legal provision in India to stop any MNC from changing the product mix.

7. Though the drug prices may not have increased significantly after such acquisitions yet, there is still a lurking threat that once India’s highly cost efficient domestic capacity is crushed under the weight of the dominant force of MNCs, the supply of low priced medicines to the people will get circumvented.

8. The ‘decimation’ of the strength of local pharma companies runs contrary to achieving the drug security of the country under any situation, since there would be few or no Indian companies left having necessary wherewithal to manufacture affordable generics once a drug goes off patent or comply with a Compulsory License (CL).

9. Current FIPB approval mechanism for brownfield pharma acquisitions is inadequate and would not be able to measure up to the challenges as mentioned above.

The Committee is also of the opinion that foreign investments per se are not bad. The purpose of liberalizing FDI in pharma was not intended to be just about takeovers or acquisitions of domestic pharma units, but to promote more investments into the pharma industry for greater focus on R&D and high tech manufacturing, ensuring improved availability of affordable essential drugs and greater access to newer medicines, in tandem with creating more competition. 

Based on all these, The Committee felt that FDI in brown field pharma sector has encroached upon the generics base of India and adversely affected Indian pharma industry. Therefore, the considered opinion of the Parliamentary Committee is that the Government must impose a blanket ban on all FDI in brownfield pharma projects.

PM clears pending pharma FDI proposals:

Unmoved by the above report of the Parliamentary Committee, just two days later, on August 16, 2013, the Prime Minister of India, in a meeting of an inter-ministerial group chaired by him, reportedly ruled that the existing FDI policy will apply for approval of all pharmaceutical FDI proposals pending before the Foreign Investments Promotion Board (FIPB). Media reported this decision as, “PM vetoes to clear the way for pharma FDI.”

This veto of the PM includes US $1.6-billion buyout of the injectable facility of Agila Specialties, by US pharma major Mylan, which has already been cleared by the Competition Commission of India (CCI).

This decision was deferred earlier, as the DIPP supported by the Ministry of Health had expressed concerns stating, if MNCs are allowed to acquire existing Indian units, especially those engaged in specialized affordable life-saving drugs, it could possibly lead to lower production of those essential drugs, vaccines and injectibles with consequent price increases. They also expressed the need to protect oncology facilities, manufacturing essential cancer drugs, with assured supply at an affordable price, to protect patients’ interest of the country.

Interestingly, according to Reserve Bank of India, over 96 per cent of FDI in the pharma sector in the last fiscal year came into brownfield projects. FDI in the brownfield projects was US$ 2.02 billion against just US$ 87 million in the green field ventures.

Fresh curb mooted in the PM’s meeting:

In the same August 16, 2013 inter-ministerial group meeting chaired by the Prime Minister, it was also reportedly decided that DIPP  will soon float a discussion paper regarding curbs that could be imposed on foreign takeovers or stake purchases in existing Indian drug companies, after consultations with the ministries concerned.

Arguments allaying apprehensions:

The arguments allaying fears underlying some of the key apprehensions, as raised by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce, are as follows:

1. FDI in pharma brownfield will reduce competition creating an oligopolistic market:

Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) has over 23,000 players and around 60,000 brands. Even after, all the recent acquisitions, the top ranked pharmaceutical company of India – Abbott enjoys a market share of just 6.6%. The Top 10 groups of companies (each belonging to the same promoter groups and not the individual companies) contribute just over 40% of the IPM (Source: AIOCD/AWACS – Apr. 2013). Thus, IPM is highly fragmented. No company or group of companies enjoys any clear market domination.

In a scenario like this, the apprehension of oligopolistic market being created through brownfield acquisitions by the MNCs, which could compromise with country’s drug security, needs more informed deliberation.

2. Will limit the power of government to grant Compulsory Licensing (CL):

With more than 20,000 registered pharmaceutical producers in India, there is expected to be enough skilled manufacturers available to make needed medicines during any emergency e.g. during H1N1 influenza pandemic, several local companies stepped forward to supply the required medicine for the patients.

Thus, some argue, the idea of creating a legal barrier by fixing a cap on the FDIs to prevent domestic pharma players from selling their respective companies at a price, which they would consider lucrative otherwise, just from the CL point of view may sound unreasonable, if not protectionist in a globalized economy.

3.  Lesser competition will push up drug prices:

Equity holding of a company is believed by some to have no bearing on pricing or access, especially when medicine prices are controlled by the NPPA guidelines and ‘competitive pressure’.

In an environment like this, any threat to ‘public health interest’ due to irresponsible pricing, is unlikely, especially when the medicine prices in India are cheapest in the world, cheaper than even Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka (comment: whatever it means).

India still draws lowest FDI within the BRIC countries: 

A study of the United Nations has indicated that large global companies still consider India as their third most favored destination for FDI, after China and the United States.

However, with the attraction of FDI of just US$ 32 billion in 2011, against US$ 124 billion of China, US$ 67 billion of Brazil and US$ 53 billion of Russia during the same period, India still draws the lowest FDI among the BRIC countries.

Commerce Minister concerned on value addition with pharma FDI:

Even after paying heed to all the above arguments, the Commerce Minister of India has been expressing his concerns since quite some time, as follows:

“Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in the pharma sector has neither proved to be an additionality in terms of creation of production facilities nor has it strengthened the R&D in the country. These facts make a compelling case for revisiting the FDI policy on brownfield pharma.”

As a consequence of which, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) has reportedly been opposing FDI in pharma brownfield projects on the grounds that it is likely to make generic life-saving drugs expensive, given the surge in acquisitions of domestic pharma firms by the MNCs.

Critical Indian pharma assets going to MNCs:

Further, the DIPP and the Ministry of Health reportedly fear that besides large generic companies like Ranbaxy and Piramal, highly specialized state-of-the-art facilities for oncology drugs and injectibles in India are becoming the targets of MNCs and cite some examples as follows:

  • Through the big-ticket Mylan-Agila deal, the country would lose yet another critical cancer drug and vaccine plant.
  • In 2009 Shantha Biotechnics, which was bought over by Sanofi, was the only facility to manufacture the Hepatitis B vaccine in India, which used to supply this vaccine at a fraction of the price as compared to MNCs.
  • Mylan, just before announcing the Agila deal, bought over Hyderabad based SMS Pharma’s manufacturing plants, including some of its advanced oncology units in late 2012.
  • In 2008, German pharma company Fresenius Kabi acquired 73 percent stake in India’s largest anti-cancer drug maker Dabur Pharma.
  • Other major injectable firms acquired by MNCs include taking over of India’s Orchid Chemicals & Pharma by Hospira of the United States.
  • With the US market facing acute shortage of many injectibles, especially cancer therapies in the past few years, companies manufacturing these drugs in India have become lucrative targets for MNCs.

An alternative FDI policy is being mooted:

DIPP reportedly is also working on an alternate policy suggesting:

“It should be made mandatory to invest average profits of last three years in the R&D for the next five years. Further, the foreign entity should continue investing average profit of the last three years in the listed essential drugs for the next five years and report the development to the government.”

Another report indicated, a special group set up by the Department of Economic Affairs suggested the government to consider allowing up to 49 per cent FDI for pharma brownfield investments under the automatic route.However, investments of more than 49 per cent would be referred to the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB).

It now appears, a final decision on the subject would be taken by the Prime Minister after a larger inter-mimisterial consultation, as was decided by him on August 14, 2013.

The cut-off date to ascertain price increases after M&A:

Usually, the cut off point to ascertain any price increases post M&A is taken as the date of acquisition. This process could show false positive results, as no MNC will take the risk of increasing drug prices significantly or changing the product-mix, immediately after acquisition.

Significant price increases could well be initiated even a year before conclusion of M&As and progressed in consultation by both the entities, in tandem with the progress of the deal. Thus, it will be virtually impossible to make out any significant price changes or alteration in the product-mix immediately after M&As.

Some positive fallouts of the current policy:

It is argued that M&As, both in ‘Greenfield’ and ‘Brownfield’ areas, and joint ventures contribute not only to the creation of high-value jobs for Indians but also access to high-tech equipment and capital goods. It cannot be refuted that technology transfer by the MNCs not only stimulates growth in manufacturing and R&D spaces of the domestic industry, but also positively impacts patients’ health with increased access to breakthrough medicines and vaccines. However, examples of technology transfer by the MNCs in India are indeed few and far between.

This school of thought cautions, any restriction to FDI in the pharmaceutical industry could make overseas investments even in the R&D sector of India less inviting.

As listed in the United Nation’s World Investment Report, the pharmaceutical industry offers greater prospects for future FDI relative to other industries.  Thus, restrictive policies on pharmaceutical FDI, some believe, could promote disinvestments and encourage foreign investors to look elsewhere.

Finally, they highlight, while the Government of India is contemplating modification of pharma FDI policy, other countries have stepped forward to attract FDI in pharmaceuticals. Between October 2010 and January 2011, more than 27 countries and economies have adopted policy measures to attract foreign investment.

Need to attract FDI in pharma:

At a time when the Global Companies are sitting on a huge cash pile and waiting for the Euro Zone crisis to melt away before investing overseas, any hasty step by India related to FDI in its pharmaceutical sector may not augur well for the nation.

While India is publicly debating policies to restructure FDI in the ‘Brownfield’ pharma sector, other countries have stepped forward to attract FDI in their respective countries.  Between October 2010 and January 2011, as mentioned earlier, more than 27 countries and economies have adopted policy measures to attract foreign investment.

Thus the moot question is, what type of FDI in the pharma brownfield sector would be good for the country in the longer term and how would the government incentivize such FDIs without jeopardizing the drug security of India in its endeavor to squarely deal with any conceivable  eventualities in future?

Conclusion:

In principle, FDI in the pharma sector, like in any other identified sectors, would indeed benefit India immensely. There is no question about it…but with appropriate checks and balances well in place to protect the national interest, unapologetically.

At the same time, the apprehensions expressed by the Government, other stakeholders and now the honorable members of the Parliament, across the political party lines, in their above report, should not just be wished away by anyone.

This issue calls for an urgent need of a time bound, comprehensive, independent and quantitative assessment of all tangible and intangible gains and losses, along with opportunities and threats to the nation arising out of all the past FDIs in the brownfield pharma sector.

After a well informed debate by experts on these findings, a decision needs to be taken by the law and policy makers, whether or not any change is warranted in the structure of the current pharma FDI policy, especially in the brownfield sector. Loose knots, if any, in its implementation process to achieve the desired national outcome, should be tightened appropriately.

I reckon, it is impractical to expect, come what may, the law and policy makers will keep remaining mere spectators, when Indian Pharma Crown Jewels would be tempted with sacks full of dollars for change in ownerships, jeopardizing presumably long term drug security of the country, created painstakingly over  decades, besides leveraging immense and fast growing drug export potential across the world.

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) can only assess any  possible adverse impact of Mergers & Acquisitions on competition, not all the apprehensions, as expressed by the Parliamentary Standing Committee and so is FIPB.

That said, in absence of a comprehensive impact analysis on pharma FDIs just yet, would the proposal of PSC to ban foreign investments in pharma brownfield sector and the PM’s subsequent one time veto to clear all pending FDI proposals under the current policy, be construed as irreconcilable internal differences…Or a clever attempt to create a win-win situation without ruffling MNC feathers?

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.

After Mollycoddling China Cracks Down on Pharma MNCs…But Why Now?

Posted on by
Reply

In tandem with exemplary growth in the healthcare sector, China has started confronting with some consequential hazards in form of serious regulatory violations involving, besides many others, hospitals, pharmaceutical pricing and food and drug safety, which reportedly include contaminated milk powder and rat meat sold as mutton.

A recent report indicates, there are rampant kickbacks at various stages in the healthcare delivery process. For example, hospitals get kickbacks from drug and device companies, and hospital executives give a portion of these kickbacks to their doctors, involving even the pharma MNCs.

While looking back, in 1997, China took its first healthcare reform measures to mend the earlier not so good practices, when medical services used to be considered just as any other commercial product or services in the country. As a result, staggering healthcare expenses made Chinese medical services unaffordable and difficult to access for a vast majority of the local population.

In April 2009, China, a country with over 1.35 billion population, unfolded a blueprint of a new phase of healthcare reform to provide safe, effective, convenient and affordable healthcare services to all its citizens. An incremental budgetary allocation of US$ 124 billion was made for the next three years to achieve this objective.

The core principle of healthcare reform in China:

The core principle of the new phase of Chinese healthcare reform is to provide basic health care as a “public service” to all its citizens, where more government funding and supervision will play a critical role.

This reform process will ensure availability of basic systems of public health, medical services, medical insurance and medicine supply to the entire population of China. It was also announced that priority would be given to the development of grass-root level hospitals in smaller cities and rural China. The general population will be encouraged to use these facilities for better access to affordable healthcare services. However, public non-profit hospitals would continue to remain one of the important providers of medical services in the country.

Medical Insurance and access to affordable medicines:

Chinese government has planned to set up diversified medical insurance systems to provide basic medical coverage to over 90 percent of the country’s population. In tandem, the new healthcare reform measures will ensure better availability of affordable essential medicines at all public hospitals.

Highly lucrative healthcare business destination:

New Chinese healthcare reform process carries an inherent promise of a large additional spending worth billions of US dollars every year catapulting China as one of the most lucrative healthcare markets of the world.

China’s healthcare spending has reportedly been projected to grow from US$ 357 billion in 2011 to US$1 trillion in 2020.

Consequently, this huge investment has started attracting a large number of global companies of various types, sizes and nationality competing for the right size of their respective pies of profits.

In that process, as the media reports highlight, global pharmaceutical players started fast increasing both their top-line revenue and bottom-line profits from the booming Chinese healthcare market.

Pharma MNCs growing bigger, outpacing local industry:

Another report highlighted, “60% of China’s healthcare stimulus money ended up going to non-Chinese multinationals”. Quoting a recent JP Morgan report the article indicated AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Novo Nordisk, Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer realized over 30 percent growth from their China operations in the early part of 2011.

With the slow down of business in Europe and in the United States, even large global pharmaceutical players like, Bayer, Sanofi, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk and many more have reportedly invested huge resources for capacity building in sales and distribution channels, local manufacturing and R&D.

Chinese Government woke-up:

Kick starting the reform process and in the face of high level of corruption, Chinese government initiated monitoring the effective management and supervision of healthcare operations of not only the medical institutions, but also the health services, together with basic medical insurance system, in good earnest.

It has been reported, though the public hospitals will receive more government funding and be allowed to charge higher fees for quality treatment, they will not be allowed to make profits through expensive medicines and treatment, which has been a common practice in China.

Violations meted with harsh measures:

Accordingly, with increased vigil in many of these areas since last couple of years, Chinese regulators have started cracking down on the culprits, who are being meted out severe and harsh punishments, consequently.

In 2012, seven public hospital directors were reportedly sent to jails for accepting kickbacks. One corrupt drug regulator was even executed along with two food-company managers involved in a poisoned milk scandal, as the report mentions.

Pharma MNCs targeted for alleged corrupt practices:

As stated above, the new healthcare reform measures include regulation of prices of medicines and medical services, together with strengthening of supervision of health insurance providers, pharmaceutical companies and retailers.

China has now reportedly targeted Multinational Companies (MNCs) for allegedly corrupt practices, including price-fixing, quality issues and consumer rights. This has forced some MNCs to defend their reputations in China where global brands often have a valuable edge over local competitors in terms of public trust.

Recently, in an effort to reduce drug prices, China has initiated probes involving 60 drug manufacturers.

According to a recent report, to make the pricing system for medicines more effective, the regulatory agencies in China are investigating the costs and prices of drug manufacturers including global pharma majors like:

  • GlaxoSmithKline Plc (GSK)
  • Merck & Co.
  • Novartis AG
  • Baxter International Inc.

The regulators are expected to go through the details of 27 companies for costs and 33 companies for pricing, as per the July 2, 2013 statement posted on China’s National Development and Reform Commission’s (NDRC) Evaluation Center of Drug Pricing.

The report highlights that a possible impetus for the NDRC to probe into pricing and costs of domestic and foreign drug companies was the announcement of China’s National Essential Drugs List in March, which increased the items on the list to 500 from 305.

Clampdown on government spending:

To exercise control on public expenditure towards drugs, the government has also reportedly clamped down on drug spending, placing some foreign drug makers’ products under price controls for the first time.

Since 2011, the Chinese Government has reduced the drug prices four times, including 15 percent reduction earlier in 2013, though the price reduction will be as much as 20 percent for the expensive drugs. At the same time, the government has reduced tax rebates on investments.

Mr. Chen Zhu, Health Minister of China has reportedly expressed that healthcare in China is still too expensive and there is still inadequate control over improper use of drugs in the country.

Another report indicates that Nestlé, Abbott Laboratories and Danone are under investigation in China for “monopolistic” pricing.

Crackdown on bribery and kickbacks:

An article in a similar context mentions that the “Chinese police started an investigation into the Chinese unit of the biggest pharmaceutical manufacturers of UK – GlaxoSmithKline and Senior executives at the unit are suspected of ‘economic crimes”.

On the same subject, a different news report also indicates, a senior Glaxo finance executive in Shanghai and employees in Beijing were detained as part of a corruption investigation.

Recently a Chinese Security Ministry official has reportedly said that GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) executives in China have confessed to bribery and tax violations.

The same report quoting the ministry highlighted that the case against GSK involved a large number of staff and a huge sum of money over an extended period of time, with bribes offered to Chinese government officials, medical associations, hospitals and doctors to boost sales and prices. Concerned executives also used fake receipts in unspecified tax law violations.

Interestingly, earlier in 2012, Global CEO of GSK reportedly admitted that the company made “unacceptable” mistakes in “mismarketing” their antidepressants Paxil and Wellbutrin, which were the subject of a US$ 3 billion settlement with the Justice Department of the United States. At that time the CEO was reported to have said “very sorry” for the incident and “determined that this is never going to happen again.” 

Another very recent news highlights that currently China is investigating at least four pharma MNCs as it widens its probe. Chinese enforcers had suggested that these pharma companies were using the same tactics to boost their businesses in the country.

It is now learnt that anti-trust body of China - State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC)  has also visited  Shanghai office of UCB. 

Happening elsewhere too:

Reports of similar alleged malpractices have started surfacing from elsewhere in the world too. For example, in Denmark, a country known for low incidence of corrupt practices, a Norwegian cardiologist was reportedly charged with taking 2 million kronor, or about US$ 350,000, from Merck and Pfizer, despite the fact, Danish law prohibits doctors from accepting money directly from the drug makers. The concerned doctor allegedly used the cash to buy expensive furniture and salmon-fishing holidays in his home country.

Last year, both the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States reportedly charged Pfizer and its subsidiary Wyeth for paying millions of dollars in bribes to officials, doctors and healthcare professionals in Bulgaria, China, Croatia, Czech Republic, Italy, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Serbia during 2001-2007 in violation of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. They had also set hefty fines on the two to settle the charges.

Conclusion:

To effectively address serious and longer term healthcare related issues of the country, the Chinese Government has already started implementing its new healthcare reform measures earnestly. Possibly to maintain equity, stay on course and uproot corrupt practices, they have now started cracking down on the violators in all seriousness, be they are from within the country or beyond its shores.

So far as the pharma MNCs are concerned, such harsh measures are being taken for alleged malpractices probably for the first time ever of this scale and that too with full media glare.

All these measures coupled with pricing pressure and gradual rise of local Chinese players, would make the Chinese market increasingly challenging to  pharma MNCs.

Some global players have already started feeling the scorching heat of tough Chinese measures. But China is too powerful a country and too lucrative a market for any entity to flex its muscle to stall the current juggernaut, at least, till the ‘Dragon’  achieves its objective of bringing down public healthcare expenditure to its expectations…Or is there more to the problem than meets the eye?

Thus, the key question emerges: 

Why has China, after mollycoddling the pharma MNCs for so many years, now started cracking down on them so hard?

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.