Tag Archives: brands

Why Do Drug Companies Now Need More Focus On The 5th “P” Of Marketing?

Posted on by
Reply

Astute marketers understand that over several decades, the much-known phraseology – ‘marketing mix’, has remained the bedrock of marketing a product or a service. The ‘Father of Modern Marketing’ - Philip Kotler defined this terminology as the “the set of controllable variables that the firm can use to influence the buyer’s response.” In this context, the controllable variables are referred to as the 4 ‘P’s - Product, Price, Place and Promotion, which remained the basic focus areas in the brand building strategy of pharma marketers, as well.

With an unprecedented transformative impact within the pharmaceutical and biotech industry during the Covid-19 pandemic – for various reasons, ‘purpose’ is fast slotting itself as the 5th fundamental ‘P’ of the marketing-mix. The changing market - triggered by changing customer dynamics, entails the need to clearly define, to the satisfaction of customers, the”purpose” of a business, brand, or service.

As it is increasingly critical to achieve business excellence in the changing paradigm, in this article I will focus on this area from the point of view of goal-oriented pharmaceutical marketing. Although, I wrote before on the need of creating purpose driven brands, this discourse is with a different perspective.

A classic concept gets a fresh impetus in Covid pandemic:

Peter Drucker, whom the Business Week magazine termed as ‘The Man Who Invented Management,’ in 2005, once wrote: “The aim of marketing is to know and understand the customer, so well the product or service fits him and sells itself… The aim of marketing is to make selling superfluous.” I reckon, this vision epitomizes the core concept of ‘purpose driven marketing.’

Understanding ‘purpose driven marketing’:

In an article, published on February 01, 2021, Ad Council wrote that after 22 years – a recent CEO roundtable deliberation decided to amend the definition of ‘purpose-driven marketing.’  The previous one was centered around ‘maximizing shareholder return.’ Whereas the amended one, in addition to serving shareholders, defined ‘purpose-driven marketing’ as ‘a strategy used by an organization to center its external communication efforts around a social cause that aligns with its core values. The goal of purpose-driven marketing is for an organization to develop a deeper rapport with their consumers by creating authentic connections based on shared values.’

This new statement reflected the changing culture in the days before the Covid-19 pandemic, when many people are more vocal about their expectations and spending. For which, they are even switching brand or service preferences in line with their values.

Covid prompts consumers rediscovering the value the industry delivers:

Covid -19 crisis has driven the positive consumer sentiment way up, as people are rediscovering the value the industry delivers to meet their new reckoning. This was also articulated in a related article. This was published in the Fierce Pharma, on August 13, 2020, as the pandemic overwhelmed the world. The same consumer sentiment also gets reflected in a first of its kind global study - ‘The 2020 Zeno Strength of Purpose Study,’ published on June 17, 2020.

The survey was carried out against the backdrop of the Covid-19 pandemic, covering 8,000 consumers across eight countries - United States, Canada, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Singapore, Malaysia. The findings of the research ‘sheds new light and unequivocal proof that the companies leading with Purpose will prevail.’ Vast majority of the respondents ‘have spoken and stand ready to give their hearts, voices and wallets in support of Purposeful brands.’

Especially, the healthcare consumers are now stepping up to stand for something more than hard facts on the features and benefits of products and services – something very meaningful that can influence positive changes in their minds. When it happens, the companies’, in tandem, will also be positively impacted to significantly improve their bottom-lines.

Some key findings of the study:

After in-depth study over 75 brands, the researchers of the above study found that:

  • 94 percent of the respondents value the companies with a strong sense of purpose and are willing to reciprocate through brand loyalty.
  • They are 4 to 6 times more likely to trust, buy, champion, and protect companies with a strong purpose over weaker ones.
  • Only 37 percent believe today’s companies are reaching their potential on this front

The paper concluded, ‘it has never been more important for companies to not only articulate their Purpose, but to consistently demonstrate that Purpose – how they operate, support issues and engage with all stakeholders.’ As the above Ad Council article articulated, the above findings also ‘mean that purpose-driven marketing can’t be cosmetic. It must be reflected in every aspect of a brand’s business model and culture, or that brand or organization can expect to be called out for hypocrisy – more on that later.’

Who’s driving the ‘purpose driven marketing?’

As I wrote in my previous article, today’s new generations, such as, Millennials - regarded as ‘digital pioneers,’ and Gen Z – the true digital natives, approach their health care in drastically different ways with new sets of expectations. These are quite different from the members of the Silent Generation, Baby Boomers, or Gen X. As the core concept of ‘purpose driven marketing’ is meeting Gen Z’s one such expectation, this population is regarded as the key driver of ‘purpose driven marketing’, in the pandemic-driven changes in the paradigm of the old normal.

I quoted in the above article, ‘Gen Z people are likely to turn the health industry on its head with their unique expectations for how healthcare should be delivered.’ Moreover, this genre of growing population is slowly but steadily gaining a critical mass to hasten the process of change that pharma marketers should take note of.

According to a paper of the World Economic Forum, published on November 08, 2021, there are 1.8 billion Gen Z around the world, equal to 23% of the global population. Yet, another paper of August 11, 2020, reconfirms that Gen Z comprises 1.8 billion people, making up for almost a quarter of the global population. India stands out with a population that includes 375 million Gen Z people – 27% of the total. Thus, Gen Z and millennial populations are considered at the forefront of shaping this new purpose-driven culture.

The Gen Z populations prefer companies contributing to social causes:

The third annual, international study of Gen Z, conducted by The Center for Generational Kinetics and commissioned by WP Engine, launched on July 07, 2020, reveals some interesting facts. These relate to new expectations for the web by Generation Z in comparison to other generations, including Millennials, Gen X, and Baby Boomers. The findings reiterate, ‘72% of Gen Z are more likely to support a company that contributes to social causes.’ It further emphasized, Gen Z is acutely aware that in today’s digital world, anyone can use their voice to ignite change, and that includes those brands which don’t take explicitly socially responsible stand in their branding strategy. Thus, imbibing ‘purpose driven marketing’ is likely to help pharma players to effectively engage this new breed of the target audience for desired long-term financial returns.

Further, based on the same logic, it is not difficult to fathom that ‘stakeholder-trust’ will also play a pivotal role, while delivering consumer expected value, and demonstrating the purpose driven actions of the business – to the Millennial and Gen Z population.

Stakeholder ‘Trust’ is critical in a value and purpose driven business:

This is a new reality, as vindicated by several recent global surveys that include India too. According to Edelman Trust Barometer 2022, ‘business holds on to its position as the most trusted institution, with even greater expectations due to government’s failure to lead during the pandemic.’ This survey – conducted against the backdrop of the pandemic, involved 36,000+ respondents in 28 global markets, including India to look at how institutions are trusted against the backdrop of the pandemic.

Some key findings of this latest study:

  • All stakeholders want business to fill the void, with nearly 60 percent of consumers buying brands based on their values and beliefs,
  • Almost 6 in 10 employees choose a workplace based on shared values and expect their CEO to take a stand on societal issues,
  • 64 percent of investors looking to back businesses aligned with their values.
  • Most respondents (59 percent) said they tend to distrust until seeing evidence that something is trustworthy,
  • 64 percent believe people in their country lack the ability to have constructive and civil debates.
  • Technology (74 percent) was the most trusted sector, followed by education (69 percent) and healthcare (69 percent). Social media (44 percent) continued its decline with a 2-point slide, solidifying its spot as the least trusted sector.
  • While Germany (65 percent) and Canada (65 percent) remained the most trusted country brands, India (36 percent) and China (34 percent) remain the least trusted.

The evolving trend indicates that the new generation, ‘wants to be a part of something bigger than themselves and they are looking to their employers to curate a fulfilling, stimulating and purpose-driven environment,’ as the article underscored. In that sense, ‘purpose-driven marketing’ has also the potential for pharma players to attract the best talents of the new generation. Conversely, it is quite likely that any organizations inability to do so, willingly, or otherwise, could help gather rust, blunting its cutting-edge for performance excellence.

Conclusion:

There isn’t any doubt that Covid-19 pandemic has initiated a paradigm shift in the expectations of the stakeholders, especially the customers and the employees from the companies. They no longer expect the organization just to focus on profit goals. Alongside, most of them also want the employers to focus, in equal measure, stakeholder value, expectation, dignity, besides social purpose and goals.

When a pharma player is seen solving societal issues, e.g., protecting the patient-health in a patient friendly manner, or saving the environment - with concrete, quantifiable measures, it creates a competitive edge for the company, fetching significant business returns from stakeholders. Surly, the pandemic is further augmenting expectations of the growing population of Gen Z – for responsible business operations = driven by value, purpose, and goals of the society – where we live in.

Consequently, it’s now becoming clearer that sustainable business excellence of pharma players can no longer be just on ‘maximizing shareholder’ returns, in terms of profit. Thus, it calls for the purpose-driven marketing, where organizational contribution to society would provide a significant competitive advantage. From this perspective, in my view, the Indian pharma marketers would now need much greater focus on the 5th ‘P’ of the marketing-mix – more than ever before.

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.

 

Create Novel Marketing Pathways As Covid Mutants Keep Emerging

Posted on by
Reply

The World’s battle against wave after wave unsettling onslaught of Coronavirus on human lives and livelihood continues, since December 2019. The first wave was triggered by the novel Covid-19 from Wuhan in China, the second by its deadly – Delta variant, and now – the third by Omicron. In India, first case of Covid-19 was reported on January 31, 2020.

Initially, global experts contemplated vaccines to prevent and contain Covid-19 and were the best hope for ending the pandemic. However, the effectiveness of existing Covid vaccines apparently declines against its subsequent mutants. This is evident even in India when the next variant Omicron commenced its onslaught.

The good news is, AstraZeneca has now claimed, a third booster shot of its Covid-19 vaccine willsignificantly boost antibody levels against the Omicron variant. However, Omicron may not be the last Covid-19 variant, as it appears today.

As the world grapples with the highly mutated Omicron, scientists have identified another new strain of the COVID-19 causing virus – in Southern France – known as ‘IHU’. This B.1.640.2 variant was reported by researchers at institute IHU Mediterranee Infection in at least 12 cases. However, it is too early to speculate on how this variant behaves as far as infection and protection from vaccines is concerned. This process is likely to take, at least, some more time.

Thus, in the current situation, when increasing numbers of even fully vaccinated individuals are getting re-infected caused by emerging mutants of Covid-19, and some more than once, the focus expanded towards more effective disease treatment. Some countries, such as the US, have decided for the 3rd booster shot of Covid-19 vaccine. Israel has even gone for the 4th booster shot of Covid vaccine. Be that as it may, in this fast-evolving scenario, even bright pharma marketers have been experiencing new strategic challenges, as we move on. Against the above backdrop, this article will delve into that space, focusing on some of the new trends of the new normal.

Pharma’s focus expands towards more effective Covid specific treatment:

Visualizing the way Covid-19 pandemic could possibly pan out in the foreseeable future, several global pharma and biotech companies have started focusing on specific treatment for this virus, ensuring speedy patient recovery.

For example, on November 21, 2020, the U.S. FDA issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for a cocktail therapy of casirivimab and imdevimab for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults and pediatric patients.

Just a month later, on December 22, 2021, the U.S. FDA issued another emergency use authorization (EUA) for Pfizer’s (nirmatrelvir tablets and ritonavir tablets, co-packaged for oral use). This was also for the treatment of mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in adults and pediatric patients.

A day after Pfizer’s the first oral COVID-19 treatment, approval, on December 23, 2022, the U.S. FDA issued one more emergency use authorization (EUA) for Merck’s molnupiravir. This is the second antiviral pill authorized in the U.S, for the treatment of mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in adults. Nearer home, the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) has also given EUA to Molnupiravir for the treatment of adult patients.

Interestingly, French regulators rejected Merck’s molnupiravir pill for low efficacy. They found other therapies were much more effective than this molecule. Even in India on January 06, 2022, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) also expressed safety concerns on Molnupiravir. Thus, it has not been included in the national list of Covid treatments in India. That said, such brilliant initiatives by several pharma companies in the battle for saving lives and livelihoods against Covid-19 pandemic, made those companies household names like never before.

Covid made several pharma companies household names, but not brands:

This point was restated in a recent article, published in the Fierce Pharma on December 22, 2021. It emphasized, Covid-19 ‘has brought the words of the pharma industry into people’s lives like never before: Moderna, Pfizer, BioNTech, AstraZeneca and Merck have become household names.’ One may not remember the names of their Covid products, but will mostly know the company.

Many people have now started referring to Covid vaccines and drugs in generic names. As from the very beginning we started hearing people saying, like – I got ‘AstraZeneca Vaccines’, ‘Remdesivir’, or ‘Covid Cocktail therapy’. Company names usually followed the generic names in most cases. Although, ‘that’s been good for pharma’s reputation, but has left marketers in a bind about branding, commented the above article.

Most Covid-19 drugs and vaccine brands are on ‘emergency use approval’

In the Covid dominated year of 2021, drug and biotech companies managed to get USFDA approval for 55 new drugs. However, many of those drugs and vaccines got only Emergency Use Approval (EUA) and only under emergency use basis. This basically means, under EUA these companies did not get full marketing approval and were handicapped to go whole hog with the usual new brand marketing campaigns.  This critical issue is expected to remain even in 2022.

In a situation, such as this, when the full scale branding initiatives can’t be undertaken, intenseCorporate Branding Campaigns, I reckon, would pay a rich dividend. This process will be quite different from creative new brand marketing in the old normal. Some global innovator companies are using even the mass media to promote their respective vaccines, albeit differently.

Such promotions include, Open Letter from the Company CEO, creative use of TV shows, messages of the head honchos through twitter or word of mouth campaigns – creating a snowballing effect. Alongside, healthcare marketing professionals are also intensifying their Covid-vaccine ad campaigns, sans brand names, to increase awareness and persuade more people to get vaccinated, soon.

To move in this direction, at least, during EUA period for Covid drugs and vaccines, hybridization of pharma marketing will be necessary in many cases, which won’t be an easy task for all, though.

Hybridization of pharma marketing – necessary – but not an easy task:

Based on experience of almost the last two years, many drug companies have realized that virtual-only customer engagement models have some serious shortcomings to fetch desired outcomes. This issue was studied and well-articulated in an article, published in the Reuters Events on November 30, 2021.

It found: “Virtual-only engagement can make it harder to create a real connection.” Further, as the paper articulated: “Even if HCPs share their video, we are losing the third dimension, hence losing out on parts of that personal component.’ Besides, although, online meetings are flexible regarding timing, if a doctor doesn’t dial-in, there is only a small chance the meeting will happen later that day, unlike waiting in a clinic for the interview to take place.

To address this issue, pharma players are now in various stages of creation and adoption of their respective hybrid marketing models. However, the process offers its own challenges. Working out customer-specific hybrid engagement models are a different ball game altogether- requiring very different skill sets, continuous training and above all a very different mindset.

Conclusion:

As reported on January 06, 2022, rapidly spreading Omicron variant of the novel Coronavirus threatens to rewrite the business recovery timelines, even in India. Even recently, many CEOs and top executives have opined, businesses would have to live with Covid-19 uncertainty. The article further added: ‘Many companies have suspended their return-to-work plans and are reassessing business continuity measures as a third wave of the pandemic starts to surge.’ Most CEOs also expressed one of their top priorities was to ensure Covid-19 protocols were being followed and all employees were safe.

Similar situation arises for all Covid drugs approved under the EUA by the Drug Controller general of India, and are being marketed by Indian companies against non-exclusive voluntary licensing agreements with the innovators. Thus, an analogous marketing issue exists surrounding all such EUAs, as the company concerned can’t undertake a full brand marketing campaign. This constraint is likely to pose a major marketing challenge for several potential Covid blockbuster drugs in India, at least in 2022, which marketers need to overcome, creatively.

From the above perspective of Covid-19 drugs and vaccines, companies would need to create novel and effective strategic pathways for performance excellence. At least, as long as Covid-19 mutants will continue to emerge, causing operational disruptions in the pharma business.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

 

Pharma Marketing: The New Normal: Challenges of Change

Posted on by
Reply

A lot has changed in healthcare marketing prompted by the Covid pandemic. Apace with these, lots of old problems continue to remain very much the same. The aforesaid was observed in a recent article, published by WARC, on May 21, 2021. Although, this analysis was done in the United States, it has a global footprint, as the disruptions are broadly similar, with a varying degree from country to country.

Healthcare marketing leadership, including the pharma industry in India, presumably, is taking notes of these critical changes, along with their degree of impact. These are the basics for required responses in India, while managing its snowballing effect, both global and local.

Today’s article will provide a bird’s eye view of this area, to encourage marketers continue with their ongoing deep-dive data gathering exercise. Then, comes sieving the ‘catch’ with cerebral power – before using modern analytics to draw meaningful inferences for strategy making.

Some macro-changes stand out:

Some of these widely visible changes, also captured in the above WARC article, include the following:

  • An emerging trend of re-orientation of the healthcare industry around patient outcomes.
  • Need to realize that health and safety are the currency that can be used to rebuild consumer trust across categories.
  • Increasing need to build deeper emotional connections with customers, going beyond product-oriented features, benefits, and intrinsic brand values.
  • Providing healthcare consumers more data and behavioral science-driven, personalized solutions to their problems – to drive better outcomes.

More people are realizing that: ‘Healthcare, after all, is about life and death, and those stakes have been tragically reaffirmed during the pandemic,’ as the above paper underscores. Thus, affordable “health and safety will continue to be a currency that brands can use to re-establish trust with anxious consumers,” the author reiterates. To steer a company in that direction the marketers need to create a pathway for success by joining several emerging dots in the new normal. Let give just a flavor of these emerging dots with three examples, as below.

‘The end point – the price point’ - re-emerging as a core value expectation: 

Interestingly, ‘The end point – the price point’ for quality treatment outcomes is re-emerging as one of the core values and expectations of the consumers, especially facing an uncertain future that everybody is witnessing today. The health system is also transitioning from ‘pay for healthcare product and services’ – to ‘pay for integrated value-based care offerings.’ In the changing environment, many pharma players seem to have realized that customers are no longer interested in paying for brand values that serve mostly self-serving interests of the respective companies.

More healthcare customers are digitally savvy now:

Today’s brand values need to be in sync with what the perceived value of the customers, enhancing their end-to-end experience of the disease treatment process, more than ever before. For example, increasing number of patients are now choosing between F2F – in-clinic consultations and remote or virtual consultations, for non-life-threatening ailments. Some often do data-driven online assessment for different treatment value offerings, against what these would cost to them.

Purpose driven corporate branding is making better impact:

Pharma industry’s purpose-driven branding initiatives, in tandem with creating robust corporate brands, are drawing much greater public attention amid the pandemic. The list includes both the original product developers and their contract manufacturers. Even in India, many held with esteem – Corporates, such as, AstraZeneca and Serum Institute of India (SII) for Covishield, or Bharat Biotech for Covaxin.

The same thing has happened world-wide with many other Covid vaccine and drug manufacturers, such as, Pfizer, Johnson &Johnson, Moderna, Eli-Lilly, Roche, and others. Interestingly, from the available data in the cyberspace or from word-of-mouth, several people have also inferred about comparative value offerings of each. At least 4 Covid vaccine manufacturers are showing-up in this year’s ‘Conscious Brands 100’ list of 2021. This is, apparently, unprecedented.

Demonstration of ‘patients’-problem solving skill’ with resilience pays: 

As we all know by now, the drug industry as such – across the world, instead getting overwhelmed by the problem, pulled up socks and rolled the sleeves to find out scientific means of saving as many lives as possible, soonest.

Almost overnight, repurposing old drugs for Covid treatment and development Covid vaccines, racing against time, were initiated. The entire healthcare industry including, Medical Diagnostic and Devices companies and others, did not fall behind to offer reliable tests for Covid diagnosis, and other life support systems and equipment.

Alongside, Omnichannel digital campaigns of many companies, and favorable news reports amid the pandemic, made people realize the stellar role of the industry in saving lives and livelihoods – from the Covid menace.

Such examples include Pfizer’s What to know About Coronavirus webpage; Merck Inc’s Podcast: How Merck is looking at past epidemics and science to respond to the coronavirus outbreak; and India’s Mankind Pharma’s Mask My India digital campaign. It captures the stories of heroes, who are setting examples and doing more than their call of duty during the COVID-19 pandemic in India. The campaign also spreads the message that ‘together we can all fight with deadly Coronavirus.’

Some pandemic-triggered India-specific challenges:

According to the April 2021 KPMG paper, Covid pandemic has brought to the fore some of the following challenges for the India pharma industry, some due to years of neglect:

  • Fragile public health care system and laboratory testing infrastructure and supplies of life support items. This primarily due to one of the lowest Government spend (1.56% of the GDP) on health. As a result, India currently ranks 155th out of 167 countries, in terms of hospital bed availability (Human Development Report 2020) with just 5 beds availability per 10, 000 Indians.
  • Changes in health care consumption pattern – especially with the increasing use of e-health or telehealth, besides, online ordering of medicines through e-pharmacies.

Apart from these, it’s also noteworthy – how pharma demonstrated its healthcare ‘problem solving’ skill to save billions of lives from deadly Covid-19 and its mutants, attracting unprecedented kudos from all corners. To keep this initiative going – meeting customers’ core expectations, in my view, could indeed be yet another challenge of change.

Conclusion:

There won’t be any ‘one size fits all’ sort of solution to address such challenges of change. Neither is all company’s challenges the same, in a relative yardstick. Each company would, therefore, need to understand what the pandemic triggered changes in market dynamics and customer expectations mean to them to pursue sustainable business excellence.

Thus, each player would require to elaborately make data-based assessment and analysis, to figure out where they currently stand, so far are the pandemic-triggered changes are concerned. With similar analysis, they should also try to fathom what are their customers’ specific value expectations, which may now go beyond the value that their brands can deliver, but critical for branding success.

Accordingly, a value delivery strategy to be worked out, taking all concerned on-board – with a carefully crafted employee and customer engagement blueprint – and mostly Omnichannel digital platforms.

To successfully navigate through the challenges of change, pharma marketers need to wear a different thinking cap. They would also need to realize that treating pharma marketing as an intrinsic product value delivery system, and by just doing digitally whatever traditionally used to be done manually, may not help generate an adequate return in the new normal. From this perspective, giving shape to a robust, comprehensive, integrated and Omnichannel digital strategic game plan for the organization, is the need of the hour.

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.

Focus On Core Competencies – Regardless of Generic Or Innovative Drug Business

Posted on by
Reply

On February 11, 2021, by two different Press Releases, two global pharma majors – GSK and Novartis simultaneously made interesting announcements. Both were related to three generic cephalosporin antibiotics.

GSK revealed, ‘it has reached an agreement with Sandoz – a division of Novartis, to sell its Cephalosporin antibiotics business. Sandoz will pay GSK USD 350 million at closing, plus additional milestone payments up to USD 150 million, subject to the terms of the transaction.’

While articulating the purpose of hiving of its generic cephalosporin brands, the company reasoned: GSK is now dividing itself into two companies – one with core competencies focused on OTC products, and the other – prescription drugs and vaccines. The company emphasized: ‘The transaction aligns with GSK’s strategy to prioritize and simplify its portfolio and invest in the company’s innovative R&D pipeline and new product launches.’ Other brands in GSK’s antibiotics portfolio, are not impacted by this divestment. In other words, this would possibly mean that the generic drug business doesn’t fall within the core competencies of GSK, any longer.

Whereas, Novartis disclosed, the company’s Sandoz division, ‘has signed an agreement to acquire GSK’s cephalosporin antibiotics business, reinforcing its leading global position in antibiotics.’ Its noteworthy that Sandoz’s core competencies lie in the generic drug business.

While explaining the purpose of this acquisition, Novartis explained, cephalosporins being the largest antibiotic segment by global sales, acquiring these 3 leading brands - Zinnat, Zinacef and Fortum,“will further position Sandoz as a global leader in antibiotics – truly essential medicines that are the backbone of modern healthcare systems.”

The above transactions bring to the fore the criticality of focusing on core competencies for business excellence, regardless of innovative drug business and in multiple situations, such as:

  • Bringing organizational focus back on core competencies when these tend to get diluted.
  • Increasing the focus on core competencies as opportunities arise.

In this article, I shall revisit this critical management concept in the current perspective.

A brief recap:

The concept of core competencies of a business organization was introduced by two global pioneers in business management – C.K. Prahalad and Gary Hamel with the article – ‘The Core Competence of the Corporation.’ This was published in the May-June 1990 edition of the Harvard Business Review.

The relevance of focusing on ‘core competencies’:

The quality and quantum of commercial dividend in consistently focusing on ‘core competencies’ in any space, spanning across individual professionals to business organizations, have been profound. This calls for defining these in detail and collectively, at the top rungs of organizational leadership. Then, cultivate, and leverage the core competencies to differentiate an organization from its competition, creating a company’s long-term competitive and sustainable advantage in the marketplace – for business excellence.

What constitutes core competencies to gain strategic strength?

Core competencies – whether for individuals or for businesses, comprise primarily of resources, such as, special skills, capabilities and rewarding experience in those activities as strategic advantages of a business. Garnering financial resources would usually follow, thereafter. Thus, core competencies are always considered as a strategic strength, everywhere. That said, core competencies require continuous monitoring to always be in-sync with changing market dynamics. Otherwise, the strategies are likely to fail.

Broad examples – from pharma perspective:

Broadly speaking, discovering, developing and successfully marketing new drugs, identifying repurposed drugs for new clinical trials, and churning out novel vaccines quickly, may be considered as core competencies for innovative drug makers. They have demonstrated this skill even during Covid-19 pandemic. Similarly, immaculate skills in reverse engineering of existing drug molecules and high efficiency in process research to gain price-competitiveness, may be construed as core competencies of generic drug companies.

Examples of shifting focus on core competencies:

Although, it is desirable that pharma players stick on core competencies for sustainable long-term performance excellence, regardless of being in primarily innovative or generic drug business, we have witnessed this focus shifting on several occasions for both. However, expected success did not generally follow those companies with such tweaking in the strategic business models.

Nevertheless, some drug companies did get tempted to deviate from their core competencies. For example, innovative drug players tried to expand into low-risk generic medicines, which, in the long run, did not deliver expected results for many companies. However, this deviation wasn’t without any compelling reasons.

There were some valid reasons, though:

As is much known, traditionally, global R&D companies prefer to focus only on the business of innovative prescription medicines. Low margin generic business wasn’t their cup of tea. Subsequently, this trend shifted. Especially in those cases, where the pipeline of high potential new drug molecules did not meet the concerned company’s expectations. To stick to the knitting, some companies with deep pockets, explored another model of Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) of innovative patented products and companies with rich new drug pipelines. Interestingly, in this M&A business model, low risk, low cost and high-volume turnover of generic business also started attracting several R&D based companies, alongside.

Which is why, an increasing number of R&D based companies started planning to expand their business in less risky generic drug business. This appeared to be a quick fix to tide over the crisis, as the generic drug business model won’t require going through lengthy R&D processes. Besides, compliance with ever increasing stringent regulatory approval protocols, particularly in the developed markets of the world.

Examples of why focus on core competencies matter, even in new normal: 

There are several examples of large companies to illustrate this point – both from the old and the new normal. Just to give a flavor of the relevance of focusing on core competencies of organizations, I shall draw upon three interesting examples. Each of these, highlight different organizational visions and perspectives at different times, particularly the relevance of focus on core-competencies for a corporation. These are as follows:

  • The first one is Daiichi Sankyo of Japan’s acquisition of India’s generic drug major of that time – Ranbaxy, in June 2008. The parent company claims: “We provide innovative products and services in more than 20 countries around the world. With more than 100 years of scientific expertise, our company draws upon a rich legacy of innovation and a robust pipeline of promising new medicines to help patients.” It is much known today, what happened to this acquisition, thereafter, for various reasons, including faulty pre-acquisition due diligence. However, later on, the domestic pharma leader – Sun Pharma, acquired Ranbaxy. Nonetheless, at least from Daiichi Sankyo’s narrative, its areas of core competencies, appear closer to any R&D-based drug company.
  • The second example is US-based Abbott Laboratories acquisition of domestic formulations business of Primal Heath care in India in May 2010. Like Daiichi Sankyo, this acquisition was also a part of Abbott’s strategy to enter into ‘generic drug business’ -dominated emerging markets. Abbott, at that time, apparently decided to expand its strategic focus beyond its core competencies in business, primarily of patented products. However, by the end of 2012, the company separated into two leading healthcare companies. Abbott became a diversified medical products company. The other one – a totally separate company was formed, with the name – AbbVie, as a new researched-based global biopharmaceutical organization. AbbVie now operates in India, as well – with erstwhile Abbott’s innovative brands. In this case, by an innovative restructuring of the parent organization, Abbott brought back its sharp focus on core competencies of both the companies with both doing well in India.
  • The third example is a recent move of reverting to the original focus of core competencies, when moving beyond these did not yield results. In that sense, this example is different from the second one. On November 16, 2020, Pfizer also announced the creation of ‘the new Pfizer’, as it reverted to its original core competencies of “developing breakthrough treatments and delivering innovative, life-changing medicines to patients around the world.” On that day, Pfizer completed transaction to spin off its Upjohn generic drug business and combined it with Mylan to create a new entity – Viatris Inc. Earlier, the company had sold its veterinary business, a baby formula unit and its consumer products division as part of a deal with GSK – for similar reasons. Earlier, the company’s moving beyond its core competencies to pluck low hanging fruits of generic drug business, did not yield dividend, as Pfizer’s profit in the generic drug sector, reportedly, had gone South.

Conclusion:

According to Pharma Intelligence, several large players, such as, Novartis, Sanofi, AstraZeneca are now focusing on core competencies, as they start recovering from their unsettling patent cliff and other headwinds. Meanwhile, one may expect to witness more of Spin-offs, Carving-out, Splitting-off or further strengthening of core-competencies of organizations – for a sustainable long-term business excellence in the years ahead.

Spin-off and acquisition of Cephalosporin generic business by GSK and Sandoz Division of Novartis, respectively, is a part of the same ball game. Thus, maintaining or reverting focus on core competencies – regardless of generic or innovative drug business, I reckon, are the new imperatives of commercial success, even 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.

 

Create Purpose-Driven-Brands To Win Marketing Warfare In The New Reality

Posted on by
Reply

As we navigate through the Covid days, the hope of somehow getting back to the pre-pandemic normal still lingers – notwithstanding a host of uncertainties in its way. The longing is driven by the hype of availability of scientifically proven, safe and effective drugs and vaccines – unrealistically soon, despite top experts still keeping their fingers crossed. Some are even more forthright in their expression, as reflected in a September 30, 2020 report. It flashed a headline - “There is no getting ‘back to normal. The sooner we accept that, the better.”

Alongside, COVID-19 crisis has also triggered some disruptive changes in the business processes around the world. Amid this global health crisis, interestingly, several global pharma CEOs are sensing a number of game-changing opportunities – having business implications, even much beyond the pandemic.

One such example, as Bloomberg reported on September 29, 2020, the CEO of GlaxoSmithKline Plc feels: The Covid Pandemic is ‘a Shot at Redemption in Pharma Industry.’ Elaborating the point, she said: ‘the sector’s push to find vaccines and drugs to end the crisis, if successful, could change the perception of pharmaceutical companies in the future.’ Coincidentally, the researchers from The Harris Poll found:

  • As of May, 40 percent of the American public said pharma’s reputation had improved since the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak
  • And 81percent recalled seeing or hearing something about the industry during that time.
  • This is a continuation of the former trend that The Harris Poll first noted on March 2020.

There shouldn’t much doubt, either, that similar general impression on the pharma industry, with a varying degree, may now be felt in most countries, across the globe.

Curiously, flowing from this ‘redemption of pharma reputation’ angle – with new drugs and vaccines, the scope for leveraging another opportunity is also surfacing. This is from pharma ‘branding’ perspective and pertains to creating ‘purpose-driven brands’ for success in the new reality – during the pandemic and much beyond. In this article, I shall focus on the second area, and would start with its relevance to increasingly more informed health care consumers of date.

‘Purpose driven brands’ – attained greater relevance in Covid time:

The concept of creating ‘purpose driven brands,’ is profound – it goes much beyond product features, benefits and intrinsic values. It is motivated by – why the brands exist not just for providing a solution to manage or cure a disease, but also to meet a crucial need in society.

Studies have unfolded, with better stakeholder connection – and greater share of their mind, ‘purpose driven brands’ help improve brand loyalty, resulting into increased revenue and profit. We will see below, why in Covid time, this trend has started gathering wind on its sail, and deserves to find its place at the very core of any pharma branding strategy.

The consulting arm of The Beautiful Truth, also echoed the same sentiment in the article – ‘How Pharma Can Navigate Change With Purpose.’ It reconfirmed, at times of external crisis, like the global pandemic, creation of ‘purpose-driven brands’ is vital. Not just ‘for saving and maintaining business, but also for boosting internal team morale, and reconciling public trust.’

The pandemic has redefined the core purpose of a brand:

Another recent article –‘Through COVID-19, Leading Brands Have Found Their Purpose,’ published in CMO by Adobe, among many others, vindicated this point. Acknowledging that the COVID-19 pandemic has redefined the meaning of brand purpose, the paper explained the reason for the same.

In pre-Covid days, many organizations used to build brands following traditional norms – curing or effectively managing a disease is the purpose of a brand. But, since last few years, a growing number of new generation health care customers expect a brand’s ‘purpose’ to expand beyond the product and the company. It has to be inclusive in nature – benefiting the macro-environment, including governments, health care professionals, and the public. With this expectation gathering momentum during Covid time, pharma players would also need to redefine the core ‘purpose’ of a brand. Incidentally, many pharma CEOs also believe, if this trend continues, the image of the industry would probably undergo a metamorphosis.

Surveys vindicate the rationale for redefinition:

Several top consulting organizations have published excellent articles covering a number of critical points in this area. One such paper - ‘Purpose is everything,’ was published in Deloitte Insights, on October 15, 2019. It wrote on how brands that authentically lead with ‘purpose’ are changing the nature of business today.

The rationale for redefinition of brand purpose, also gets reflected in a contemporary Deloitte survey, as quoted in the above article. It revealed the following top three issues that stakeholders identify with, while making decisions about brands: 

Top Issues

% of respondents
How the company treats its own people/employees

28
How the company treats the environment

20
How the company supports the community in which it operates

19

Aligning purpose to create deeper connections with stakeholders:

Especially at the Covid time, if companies try to align their purpose in doing good – for the society, they can build deeper connections with their stakeholders. And, in turn, amplify the company’s relevance in their stakeholders’ lives. From this perspective, it’s good to note in the above Bloomberg article, that one of the top pharma CEOs articulating the same in public. I reckon, increasingly, pharma businesses would endeavor harnessing the power and opportunity of aligning the ‘core purpose of brands’ with societal good, as came out in the above Deloitte article.

Mostly millennial generation favor ‘purpose-driven’ brands:

The initiation of this trend dates back to pre-Covid time with wider usage of internet. However, with the increasing democratization of health care - social media based instant information sharing, the ability to communicate with others as needed, have increased manifold. Consequently, stakeholders, particularly, the millennial generation with a different mindset, aspirations and expectations are expecting pharma players to act more on the pressing societal issues. This makes them lean towards a purpose driven brands and companies. The unprecedented Covid health crisis is acting as a force multiplier in this area.

Another study – ‘Why Customers Are Supporting ‘Purpose-Driven’ Brands,’ published in Link fluence epitomized this evolving customer preference succinctly. It reiterated, ‘It’s no longer enough for brands to deliver great products and experiences. Instead, consumers are demanding for brands to be more proactive and conscious in delivering value to society as a whole.’

‘Purpose-driven brands’ – the latest ‘marketing buzzword’?

This question was conclusively answered about two years ago -  from the 2018 Cone/Porter Novelli Purpose Study. Although, this survey was conducted in the United States, it has a global relevance amid Covid pandemic. Some of the key findings include: 

  • 78 percent believe companies must do more than just make money; they must positively impact society as well.
  • 77 percent feel a stronger emotional connection to Purpose-driven companies over traditional companies.
  • 66 percent would switch from a product they typically buy, for a new product from a purpose-driven company.
  • 68 percent is more willing to share content with their social networks over that of traditional companies. 

Examples of ‘purpose-driven’ pharma brands/companies:

Let me give just two examples each – from pre-Covid and Covid times. The article – ‘Mission-Drive Pharma Brands,’ published by Wonder on January 15, 2018, cited several examples of ‘purpose-driven’ pharma brands. This was based on a research of individual drug campaigns for top-selling drugs around that time. These include promotional campaigns on:

  • Humira: Highlighted the participation in a community food drive, and volunteering in a playground construction project.
  • Lyrica: Highlighted the engagement in a multi-generational interaction and helping others.

Encouragingly, while combating COVID-19, several pharma companies have also displayed a sense of ‘purpose’ to save the humanity from the pandemic, mainly through collaborative approaches. Let me quote below two such examples:

  • On April 14, 2020 GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi announced a very unusual collaboration to develop a COVID-19 vaccine, expeditiously. This was done for a greater purpose, responding to the critical need of the society – saving millions of lives.
  • Roche called on and campaigned for the governments for focusing on testing and prevention, to maintain adequate medical supplies for health care professionals  around the world. It also urged the health authorities to work closely with the life sciences industry to tackle the Covid-19 pandemic through international collaboration to tackle Covid-19 pandemic.

Conclusion:

Meanwhile, as on October 04, 2020 morning, India recorded a staggering figure of 6,549,373 of Coronavirus cases with 101,812 deaths. Still there is no respite from Covid-19’s unprecedented onslaught on the country. Be that as it may,  coming back to the creation of ‘purpose-driven brands’ in the Covid time, let me quote again from the above CMO by Adobe article, where it underscored:“Never before have brands been asked to show their true purpose and leadership as they are today. It’s inspiring to see companies across industries and throughout the world come together to address some of the most pressing needs brought about by this crisis.”

As Accenture had articulated: ‘In an era of radical visibility, technology and media have given individuals the power to stand up for their opinions and beliefs on a grand scale.’ Keeping this in view, with gradually changing stakeholder mindset and expectations, the ‘purpose of a brand’ deserves to be a critical centerpiece in the pharma ‘branding’ process. Various studies have established – since pre-Covid time, and more during this pandemic – brands, reflecting a robust sense of ‘purpose’ on societal values, people and the environment, connect better with customers.

Consequently, as the stakeholders find these companies walk the talk, they develop a strong and sustainable brand preference, and reward the manufacturers commensurately, both directly and also through word of mouth. Alternatively, if the stated ‘brand purpose’ is not genuine – which customers can quickly find out through digital transparency, they shift their preferences to the deserving ones. Going by this growing trend, I reckon, creating ‘Purpose-Driven-Brands’ assumes a critical importance to win marketing warfare, in the new reality.

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.

 

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.

Reaping Rich Harvest With Orphan Drugs

Posted on by
Reply

A set of perplexing questions on the drug industry has been haunting many, since long. One such area is intimately associated with the core purpose of this business, as enunciated by each company, often publicly. Just to give a feel of it, let me quote what one of the largest global pharma players – Pfizer articulated in this regard, on April 5, 2019: “Health for All is at the core of our company’s purpose. We advance breakthroughs that change patients’ lives by ensuring they have access to quality health care services and Pfizer’s medicines and vaccines.”

Publicly expressed core purpose of any pharma business being generally similar, it may be construed as the same of the industry, at large. Hence, some baffling questions – not ethical, but purely commercial in nature, float at the top of mind, such as:

  • How the core purpose of business – “Health for All”, gets served when companies bring to the market mostly exorbitantly high-priced drugs, having access only to a minuscule patient population?
  • How are these companies growing at a faster pace and doing better commercially, by focusing more on orphan drugs approved for the treatment of rare diseases, affecting a very small patient population.

At this point, it will be worthwhile to have a quick recap on ‘orphan drug’ and ‘rare disease’. According to MedicineNet, orphan drugs are those which are developed to specifically treat rare medical condition. This rare medical condition is also referred to as an orphan disease. With that preamble, I shall now focus on this knotty area in search of evidence-based answers to – Is it possible to reap a rich harvest in business with orphan drugs for rare disease? And, if so, how?

Is the focus on high priced orphan a strategic business move?

Regardless of an affirmative or negative answer to the above questions, many people are head scratching with anguish while observing this trend in the drug industry. Mainly because, it is possibly the most important industry for most patients, not only while suffering from an ailment, but also before and after it happens, for various reasons.

The anguish increases manifold, when top manufacturers of popular mass-market drugs, such as, the cholesterol blockbuster Crestor, Abilify for psychiatric conditions, cancer drug Herceptin, and rheumatoid arthritis drug Humira, the best-selling medicine in the world, at a later stage seek and receive orphan drug status for these products reaping a rich harvest. The underlying intent being leveraging ‘additional advantages’ for exorbitant pricing and lesser competition. Hence, it is a strategic business move. I shall discuss this point in greater details, as was raised in a Kaiser Health News (KHN) investigation, in this article.

The same feeling gets resonated in several articles and papers, such as the one titled ‘Big Pharma’s Go-To Defense of Soaring Drug Prices Doesn’t Add Up,’ published in The Atlantic on March 23, 2019. It questioned, ‘How is it that pharmaceutical companies can charge patients $100,000, $200,000, or even $500,000 a year for drugs – many of which are not even curative?’ Nonetheless, the strategy is working well, as we shall find below.

More drugs for rare diseases entering the market at a higher price:

Another article, titled ‘Drug Prices for Rare Diseases Skyrocket While Big Pharma Makes Record Profits,’ published by America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) on September 10, 2019 wrote, drugs for rare diseases are now entering the market at higher prices than ever before, ranging from tens-of-thousands to hundreds-of-thousands of dollars per patient. It further wrote, according to a new report by AHIP, ‘out-of-control drug prices mean too many patients are forced to choose between paying for their prescriptions or paying their mortgage. The prices for drugs to treat rare medical conditions are 25 times more expensive than traditional drugs. That is 26-fold increase in two decades.

The rationale behind so high pricing:

To explore the rationale behind the exorbitant pricing of such drugs, let’s examine what the expert organizations, such as the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (CSSD) said in this regard. Quoting a senior research fellow of CSDD, the article - ‘The High Cost of Rare Disease Drugs,’ published by the Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News (GEN) on March 04, 2014 reported, although biopharma players generally set higher prices for orphan drugs, there is no causal link between cost of development and pricing. Instead, rare-disease drug prices reflect typical supply and demand situation: ‘Few treatment alternatives allow companies to charge what they can, knowing that payers will often ultimately foot the bill.’

It further explained: “The rarity of the disease means that few people are affected. Generally, the fewer disease sufferers there are, the higher the price of the drug. Companies that invest the same amount of money or more in orphan drugs as they would non-orphan drugs, want to recoup their investment.”

The situation in India for such drugs:

The January 05, 2019 issue of The Pharma Letter captures it all in its headline – ‘India lifts price caps on innovative and orphan drugs; major fillip for Big Pharma.’ It said, with the new legislation announced on January 4, 2019, the Indian government has decided to remove price restrictions on new and innovative drugs developed by foreign pharmaceutical companies for the first five years. In a rider, the government notification also states, the provisions of the Drug Price Control Order (DPCO) 2013 will not apply to drugs for treating orphan diseases (rare diseases).

How will it impact Indian patients?

Consequent to the above government decision, as the report indicated: ‘Orphan drugs to treat rare disease, like Myozyme (alglucosidase alfa) and Fabrazyme (agalsidase beta), both from Genzyme, which are used in the treatment of rare genetic diseases, are among a host of medicines that are to be kept out of price control.’

Quoting officials, the paper pointed out, the most challenging part in the fight against rare diseases is access to affordable treatment. As on date, the prices of these drugs tend to vary, e.g., the cost of treatment with enzyme replacement therapies may reach more than $150,000 per treatment per year. Whereas, in some other areas it may even be as much as $400,000 annually. Moreover, most of these drugs are rarely available in India. As a result, Indian patients suffering from rare diseases have to import these drugs directly. This makes affordability of medicines with an orphan drug regulatory status, a major issue for different stakeholders.

Why patient groups are not generally too vocal about this issue?

An interesting paper of 2008-09 brought to the fore the importance of patient organizations to further patient interest in various areas of health care. With the example of rare diseases and orphan drugs, it aptly expressed: ‘by changing the scale of their organizational efforts, patients’ organizations have managed to integrate themselves into the relays of power through which matters of health are thought about and acted upon. Through their formation into coalitions, patients’ organizations have been able to assume a number of important functions in relation to the government of health.’ The paper further added that the orphan drug problem can be thought of as having changed the scale and organizational form of rare disease patients’ groups.

Regrettably, a recent report of October 09, 2019, raised a big question in this area with a startling headline - ‘Big Pharma’s shelling out big-time to patient organizations. Is there any quid pro quo?’ It said, the Senate Finance Committee of the United States, while looking into the drug pricing decisions, ‘is digging into pharma funding for patient advocacy groups, which have been known to speak in tune that are music to the industry’s ears.’ It added, some Big Pharma constituents together contributed more than $ 680 million to hundreds of patient groups and other nonprofits last year.

It’s worth noting, earlier this year, several patient advocacy groups rallied in objection to a Trump-administration plan that would introduce step therapy requiring patients to try cheaper drugs before moving to more costly ones. ‘A Kaiser Health News analysis found that about half of the groups that objected had received funding from the pharmaceutical industry.’ Be that it may, rallying behind high drug prices by patient groups would help the industry only at the cost of patients’ interest. This is beyond an iota of doubt.

The motivation behind marketing more drugs for rare diseases:

There are several motivating factors to market drugs, which also treat rare disease, attaching startling price tags. The top drivers are generally considered, as follows:

  • The company gets seven years of market exclusive rights with the drug marketing approval for a rare or orphan disease. Interestingly, many drugs that now have an orphan status aren’t entirely new, either. Even if, the product patent runs out, USFDA won’t approve another version to treat that rare disease for seven years. This exclusivity is compensation for developing a drug, designed for a small number of patients whose total sales weren’t expected to be that profitable, otherwise.
  • Market exclusivity rights granted by the ‘Orphan Drug Act’ in the United States, can be a vital part of the protective shield that companies create.
  • Leveraging associated free pricing incentive, the concerned company can attach any price tag of its choice to the orphan drug, sans any competition.
  • Interestingly, more than 80 orphan drugs won USFDA approval for more than one rare disease, and in some cases, multiple rare diseases. For each additional approval, the drug manufacturer is qualified for a fresh batch of incentives. 

The system ‘is being manipulated by many drug makers’:

That this system is being manipulated by many drug makers was also established by the Kaiser Health News (KHN) investigation dated January 17, 2017 titled, ‘Drugmakers Manipulate Orphan Drug Rules To Create Prized Monopolies.’ The analysis brought out that ‘the system intended to help desperate patients, is being manipulated by most drug makers. It reiterated, the key driver is to maximize profits, besides protecting niche markets for even those medicines, which are already being taken by millions. Thus, many orphan drugs, originally developed to treat diseases affecting fewer than 200,000 people, come with astronomical price tags.’

Even some familiar brands were later approved as orphan drugs:

The KHN’s investigation also uncovered that many drugs that now have an orphan status aren’t entirely new. Over 70 were drugs first approved by the USFDA for mass market use. These medicines, some with familiar brand names, were later approved as orphans. ‘In each case, their manufacturers received millions of dollars in government incentives plus seven years of exclusive rights to treat that rare disease, or a monopoly’, the investigation revealed.

The same KHN study also cited the example of AbbVie’s Humira – the best-selling drug in the world. ‘Humira was approved by the USFDA in late 2002 to treat millions of people who suffer from rheumatoid arthritis. Three years later, AbbVie asked the FDA to designate it as an orphan to treat juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, which they told the FDA affects between 30,000 and 50,000 Americans. That pediatric use was approved in 2008, and Humira subsequently was approved for four more rare diseases, including Crohn’s and uveitis, an inflammatory disease affecting the eyes. The ophthalmologic approval would extend the market exclusivity for Humira for that disease until 2023, the report highlighted.

The report also indicated, much touted Gleevec of Novartis, a drug that revolutionized the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia, has nine orphan approvals. Similarly, Botox, started out as a drug to treat painful muscle spasms of the eye and has three orphan drug approvals. It’s also approved as a drug for mass-market for a variety of ailments, including chronic migraines and wrinkles. Despite humongous pricing, recent reports show that drugs with orphan status are eclipsing many new drugs with outstanding commercial success.

Companies focus on orphan drugs for better financial results:

Many top global companies’ sharp strategic focus on orphan drugs, presumably for the above reasons, is paying a rich dividend. This is evident from a number of recent reports, such as, ‘Orphan Drug Report 2019’ of Evaluate Pharma, released in April. The report says, orphan drugs will make up one-fifth of worldwide prescription sales, amounting to $242bn in spending by 2024 – much of it is going to either big pharma or big biotech players. It also found that the drugs prescribed for the treatment of rare diseases now account for seven of the 10 top-selling drugs of any kind, ranked by annual sales.

Another study of October 2019 by Prime Therapeutics LLC (Prime) shows, with more of ultra-expensive drug treatments coming to market, there is a sharp jump in the number of drug super spenders. While small in number, this group of drug super spenders grew 63 percent, which resulted in $800 million in additional drug costs. In the same period, the number of drug super spenders with drug costs over $750,000 increased 38 percent. This explains, why many companies are focusing on orphan drugs for better financial results.

Conclusion:

As the above quoted report of AHIP articulated, the regulators’ primary intent behind creating lucrative incentives for orphan drugs, was to encourage drug makers to develop treatments for rare diseases by earning a modest profit. ‘Unfortunately, drug makers have responded by building lucrative business models that empower them to achieve a gross profit margin of more than 80 percent – compared to an average gross profit margin of 16 percent for the rest of the pharmaceutical industry,’ the report said.

The AHIP study also finds, from 1998 to 2017, orphan drugs were 25 times more expensive than non-orphan drugs, resulting 26-fold increase in average per-patient annual cost, while the cost of specialty and traditional drugs merely doubled. Today, 88 percent of orphan drugs cost more than $10,000 per year per patient, which will be no different even when Indian patients import the same. The paper also revealed, in 2017, seven out of ten best-selling drugs had orphan indications. And among newly launched drugs, the share of orphan drugs increased more than 4-fold, from 10 percent to 44 percent, over a 20-year period.

Coming back to the core purpose of the pharma and biotech business, as defined by the pharma organizations themselves, one would have expected the situation to be much different. Their stated business purpose – ‘Health for All’, does not seem to recognize: “Every patient deserves to get the medications they need at a cost they can afford,’ as AHIP reiterates. Whereas, “drug makers are gaming well-intentioned legislation to generate outsized profits from drugs intended to treat a small population of patients with rare diseases.” In this scenario, reaping a rich harvest with the orphan drug status seems to have become a 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.

Spirit Behind Drug Patent Grant: Secondary Patents: Impact on Drug Access

Posted on by
Reply

For more effective treatment against existing diseases, besides combating new or a more complicated form of existing ailments with precision, drug innovation is absolutely necessary and on an ongoing basis. This makes innovative drugs so important for the population, globally.

Besides academia, the pharma industry has remained in the forefront of the search for new drugs, for so long. What makes this process so crucial is, cheaper generic drugs flow from the innovative drugs, post market exclusivity period, which together form the bedrock of the pharma industry’s business model. Consequently, a robust patent protection for the new molecular entities, not only enable the drug innovators to make a reasonably good profit, but also encourage them to keep this virtuous circle moving, faster.

Although, the drug patents are granted for 20 years, after obtaining marketing approval from the respective drug regulators, a time period - ranging between 7 and 12 years, is available to the company to realize its maximum commercial benefits. Thereafter, the patent expires, paving the way of market entry of cheaper generic equivalents to make the drug accessible to a larger population. This is the playbook, which deserves to be accepted and respected by all, both in the letter and spirit.

Currently, the narrative has started changing, apparently, repudiating the spirit behind the grant of new drug patents, especially with the entry of a number of expensive, large molecule biopharmaceutical drugs. After obtaining a fixed-term market exclusivity, more intricate legal measures are being taken to extend the fixed-term market monopoly for an unknown period, delaying market entry of cheaper biosimilar equivalents, post patent expiry, as long as possible.

In this milieu, India appears to be the only country in the world, where the country’s ‘Patents Act’ provides enough safeguard to blunt those legal tools, effectively, to protect patients’ health interest. Quite expectedly, this new narrative of the drug innovators is yielding the best return in the Eldorado of the pharma world – the Unites States. It is also no secret that US vehemently opposes several provisions of the Indian Patents Act 2005, under pressure from the most powerful pharma lobby group, as many believe.

Using the spirit behind drug patent protection as the backdrop, I shall dwell in this article, how this so precious spirit is gradually losing its basic purpose, especially for blockbuster biopharma drugs. Is the key intent behind sacrificing the spirit behind drug patent grant to keep their brands money spinners and big – even after expiry of original patent – as long as possible – at the cost of patients’ health interest?

Despite the original patent expiry, biggest biologic drugs remain big:

The fact that original patent expiries have done little to halt sales of some of the industry’s biggest products – mostly biologic drugs, was clearly elucidated in an  Evaluate Pharma article – “Biopharma’s biggest sellers – the oldies that just keep giving,” published on August 14, 2019. This gets vindicated, as we look at the ‘top ten pharma brands with biggest lifetime sales – from launch to 2018’, in the following Table I:

Product Company Launch year USD Billion
1. Lipitor Pfizer 1997 164.43
2 Humira AbbVie 2003 136.55
3. Rituxan Genentech/Biogen 1997 111.50
4. Enbrel Amgen 1998 108.16
5. Epogen Amgen 1988 107.90
6. Advair GSK 1998 104.20
7. Remicade Janssen 1998   98.00
8. Zantac GSK 1981   97.42
9. Plavix Sanofi/BMS 1998   90.63
10. Herceptin Genentech/Roche 1998   87.97

(Adapted from Evaluate Pharma data of August 14, 2019)

The point to take note of:

The point worth noting here, with the exception of Advair, Zantac, Lipitor and Plavix, all others – among the top ten brands, are biologic drugs. Moreover, what is most striking in the Table I, despite the expiry of the original patents, a large number of biologic brands were able to expand their sales, pretty impressively, for well over two decades. As we shall see later, this situation is expected to continue, at least, till 2024.  As the Evaluate Pharma article states, for various reasons, these multibillion dollar brands have been able to avoid the expected post patent expiry ‘onslaught from biosimilars in the key US market’, which is incidentally the most valuable pharma market in the world.

One of the key reasons that helps delaying cheaper biosimilar drug entry expanding patient access, is a crafty strategic measure adopted by these companies through the creation of a Patent Thicket with secondary patents. As I discussed in this Blog on April 22, 2019, this is a crafty way of ‘evergreening’ patent term beyond 20 years, legally. Whether such measures conform to the spirit of granting 20 years product patent, becomes a moral question, or an issue of probity for the concerned companies, at the most. Be that as it may, a concern over this situation has been raised in many countries, including the United States.

Barrier of secondary patents: 

Biosimilar drug developers continue facing multiple non-financial challenges, such as, scientific, regulatory, pricing. I have already discussed some of these barriers in this blog on July 31, 2017. Instead, I shall focus in this article, with greater detail, on the intricate and a well-woven net of secondary patents. However,before delving into this area, it will be worthwhile to have a quick recap on the basic differences between original patents and secondary patents.

According to WIPO, “Patents on active ingredients are referred to as primary patents. In later phases of the drug development, patents are filed on other aspects of active ingredients such as different dosage forms, formulations, production methods etc. These types of patents are referred to as secondary patents.”

Another excellent paper, authored by two distinguished researchers from Columbia University and LSE, makes some important points on this subject. It says, secondary patents have become increasingly important to the pharma industry, especially in the U.S. and Europe over the past three decades. The basic purpose of ‘taking out multiple patents on different aspects of a drug in order to cordon off competitors is now standard practice in the pharmaceutical industry.’ As the authors further said, this is primarily because: ‘Secondary patents can protect market shares by extending periods of exclusivity beyond the dates in which patent protection would otherwise lapse.’

Interestingly. devising patent strategies to extend periods of market exclusivity is generally considered in the industry, as a key component of ‘product life cycle management,’ – not by the marketing whiz kids, but by astute patent attorneys. Nevertheless, as the paper articulates, critics of this practice often use the more pejorative – evergreening, to describe it.

Examples of impact of secondary patents:

Many research papers suggest, besides scientific complexity in biosimilar drug development being a key reason for their delayed market entry, secondary patents are even tougher barriers for the same. This was brought to light a few years ago in a ‘Review Article’ – ‘The Economics of Biosimilars’, published in the September/October 2013 issue of American Health & Drug Benefits.

Some of the key points made on this issue include,AbbVie plan to defend Humira (adalimumab) with more than 200 secondary patents, Merck’s giving up its biosimilar project on Enbrel when Amgen got its expanded patent life. There are many other such instances.

Its effect would last longer: 

Experts believe, the effect of creating a strong secondary patent shield around blockbuster biologic would last much longer. As the above Evaluate Pharma article underscores: ‘This ability to fend off biosimilar competition is one of the reasons Humira is set to snatch Lipitor’s crown next year as the industry’s most successful drug.’

The Table II below that lists ‘top 10 pharma brands from their respective launch date, including estimated forecast till 2024’, vindicates its long-lasting impact:

Product Company Launch year USD Billion
1. Humira AbbVie 2003 240.05
2 Lipitor Pfizer 1997 180.19
3. Enbrel Amgen 1998 139.83
4. Rituxan Genentech/Biogen 1997 136.07
5. Revlimid Celgene 2008 123.64
6. Remicade Janssen 1998 117.20
7. Epogen Amgen 1988 115.87
8. Herceptin Genentech/Roche 1998 114.89
9. Avastin Genentech/Roche 2004 114.27
10. Advair GSK 1998 113.61

(Adapted from Evaluate Pharma data of August 14, 2019)

Although, Zantac and Plavix no longer feature in this table, one drug that leapfrogged much of the competition to become one of the industry’s biggest future bestsellers is Revlimid. The projected sales of the drug over the next six years will actually outstrip its sales to date. However, much of this is dependent on whether generic competition will arrive ahead of Revlimid’s 2022 patent expiry, the paper indicated.

Concern expressed even in the US for the delay in biosimilar market entry:

Many big spending countries on health care, such as the United States expected that timely biosimilar drug entry will help contain health expenditure significantly. However, the article published in the Fierce Pharma on August 29, 2019, raises an alarm, but with a hope for the future. It says: “It’s no secret biosimilars haven’t made a big dent in U.S. drug spending. Some experts have even said it’s time to give up on copycat biologic.”

This hope gets resonated with what, ‘the former US-FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb argues’. He feels, ‘It’s too soon for that’, while ‘calling on Congress to bolster the budding market.’ However, in my personal view, this will remain a difficult proposition to implement, as biologic drug players will continue using their relatively new, but powerful weapon of filing a number of complex ‘secondary patents.’ These will help extend the market exclusivity period of their respective brands, much beyond the original patent grant period, unless a counter legal measures are taken by the lawmakers of various countries, including the United States. But, India is an exception in this regard.

Indian patent law doesn’t encourage ‘secondary patents’:

The good news is, Indian Patent Act 2005, doesn’t encourage ‘secondary patent.’ This is because, section 3 (d) of the Indian Patent Act 2005 limits grant of ‘secondary pharmaceutical patents.’ An interesting study reported on February 08, 2018, discussed about 1,700 rejections for pharma patents at the IPO spanning over the last decade. But, there is a huge scope for improvement in this area.

Which is why, the not so good news is under-utilization of the same section 3.d by the Indian Patent Office (IPO), as are being voiced in many reports. One such paper of April 25, 2018 highlighted,72 per cent of pharma patent grants are secondary patents. These were granted for marginal improvements over previously known drugs for which primary patents exist. That said, despite such reported lapses, blocking of some crucial secondary patent grant has benefited a large number of patient population of India.

Blocking secondary patent grant has helped India immensely:

While US recognizes secondary patents, blocking secondary patent grant, especially for biologic drugs has helped Indian patients immensely, with expanded access to those medicines. This was also captured in the above study. Besides the classic case of Novartis losing its secondary patent challenge for Glivec in the Supreme Court of India in 2013, several other examples of secondary patent rejection are also available. This includes, among others, Glivec of Novartis and the world’s top selling drug for several years – Humira of AbbVie.Against a month’s therapy cost of ₹1,6o, ooo for Glivec in the US, its Indian biosimilar version costs for the same period ₹11,100. Similarly, while the treatment cost with Humira in the US is ₹85,000, the same with its biosimilar version in India is ₹ 13,500, as the above study finds.

Conclusion:

The core purpose of drug innovation, as widely touted by the R&D-based drug companies, is meeting the unmet needs of patients in the battles against diseases. Thus, drug innovation of this genre must not just be encouraged, but also be adequately protected and rewarded by granting product monopoly for a 20-year period from the date of the original patent grant. Curiously, piggybacking on this basic spirit behind the drug patent grant, pharma lobby groups are now vocal on their demand for giving similar treatment to secondary patents on various molecules. The tone of demand gets shriller when it comes to section 3. d of the Indian Patents Act, which doesn’t allow such ‘evergreening’ through secondary patents.

Thus, the key question that surfaces, while the original patent grant for innovative drugs help meeting unmet needs of some patients, whose unmet needs would a secondary patent grant meet, except making the concerned company richer? Further, for highly expensive biologic drugs, delayed market entry of cheaper biosimilars in that process, would deny their expanded access – failing to meet the unmet needs of scores of others.

Hopefully, India won’t give in to pressure of multinational pharma lobby groups, channeled through various powerful overseas government entities. At the same time, I hope, the government in power at the Eldorado of the pharma industry, will consider giving a fair chance of market entry to cheaper biosimilars, including those from India, to also grow their business globally, but in a win-win way.

The key objective of all stakeholders involved in this process, should be to uphold the basic spirit behind drug patent grant. It may even call for challenging the core intent behind secondary patent applications, the world over, that deny quicker market entry for cheaper biosimilars, sans heavy litigation expenses. This will help expand access to cheaper biologic medicines to all those who can’t afford those, otherwise.

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.