The Hype of Digitalization in Pharma Marketing

Posted on August 13, 2018 by Tapan Ray

Having access to the fountain of knowledge residing in the cyberspace, fueled by word of mouth information and aided by social media, patients’ behavior is fast changing globally. Its degree may vary. But the change is real. The good news is – in a digital world of today, people are talking about ‘digitalization’ to rejuvenate per dollar productivity even in the pharma business, while navigating through a strong environmental headwind.

But, the bad news seems to be, that many pharma players, especially in India, can’t possibly quite fathom, just yet, the profound impact of the changing customer profile. With the hype of ‘digital marketing’ and associated cacophony, most of them seem to be focusing on automation of various processes with digital tools, rather than a customer-centric pan-organization digitalization of business. In this article, I shall dwell on the relevance of such intervention in the pharma marketing model, including the processes, before it’s too late for an organization.

The reality – profile of pharma consumers is changing:

It is well documented today that the profile of pharma consumers is changing. There are several studies in this area. For example, the McKenzie paper of November 2014, titled “A digital prescription for pharma companies,” penned some important observations in this regard, as follows:

Consumers in the healthcare sector are becoming more informed, empowered, and demanding.

The vast majority of connected patients using an array of digital tools, to take control of their health and the health care services they access and buy.

Over 70 percent of patients who are online in the United States use the Internet to find healthcare information, and around 40 percent of people who diagnosed their condition through online research had it confirmed by a physician.

Patients equip themselves with information about product safety, efficacy, cost comparison, quality indicators from websites and online communities.

The more healthcare data become digitally accessible, the more patients will use it to weigh—and potentially reject—expensive health care treatments, as is particularly true in the United States.

These patients are demanding more information, so they can apply the same cost-benefit analysis and research techniques they use to purchase cars or phones when they purchase health care.

They are also making more informed, rational choices about where they put their money.

If pharma companies do not join the digital dialogue and influence the conversation, they will lose an opportunity to shape it, and they may be put on the defensive trying to refute the statements made by those that do take part.

In this evolving scenario, the expectations of pharma customers even in India, are also changing. It may not be as fast as in the United States, but certainly can’t be ignored in any way, for long term business success. Thus, I reckon, it would be futile to keep the basic process of business as tradition-bound as it has always been, of course, with some interesting tweaking here or there.

When everybody talks about digital intervention, what it is really?

To effect this desired change, all concerned are now talking about ‘digitalization’. It has already become a buzz word and is often considered as a ‘magic wand’ by many enthusiasts. There is nothing wrong in this hype, provided this process is properly understood. I tried to explain it in my article, published in this Blog on January 2018. Are we missing wood for the tree? Let me start with the current ‘digitalization’ focus of pharma marketing in this area, particularly in India – as I see it.

Where’s the current focus on ‘digitalization’ in pharma marketing?

Generally, the pharma marketing focus broadly covers two different categories:

A. Push marketing

B. Pull marketing

A. Push marketing:

In my view, ‘push marketing’ involves targeting physicians through Medical Representatives and other means, including several contentious ones. These ensure that the doctors “push” the identified pharma brands of the company while writing prescriptions for patients. Some experts call it an ‘inside out’ and brand focused strategy of the industry players to drive sales.

Many companies are taking major digital steps to introduce automation in this area, which are not transformative, but incremental and aimed at improving productivity. Such drive encompasses many areas of a pharma organization, including the field staff related functions. For example, replacing usage of paper-based items, such as detailing folders or reporting material, with algorithm-based digital tablet devices. These reforms help answer customer questions promptly, besides almost real-time entry of accurate doctors’ call related data into a remote computer server for continuous analysis and feedback.

Automation of such types may free enough time of the field staff for greater customer contacts in different ways, but may not be considered as digitalization of the organization. Moreover, these are not transformative in nature either, as the overall process of doing business remains the same.

Nonetheless, process automation and its re-engineering add significant, but incremental value to the business, as the organization continues to maintain similar ‘inside-out’ focus on brands. The re-engineered processes also become faster and more accurate to help improve productivity. However, patients’ knowledge-base, needs, demands, values and aspiration keep changing fast, which just process automation can’t leverage to excel in business.

B. Pull marketing:

Unlike ‘push marketing’, ‘pull marketing’ targeting pharma consumers who are increasingly becoming more informed and want to get involved in their treatment decision making process, including selection of a drug. The evolving trend suggests, to succeed in business, pharma players would require focusing more on patients, using various digital tools and platforms of engagement, in different ways.

To make this process meaningful, it is essential for a drug company to venture into mapping the patient’s journey from end-to-end for a specific disease or a set of diseases. This means capturing real-life data right from the time patients feel the need for a medical intervention, through the search for the right treatment, to effective disease management or cure, including follow-up, if any. Thus, mapping this arduous and complex odyssey would demand application of state-of-the-art digital tools.

Thereafter, equally sophisticated measures structured on digital platforms and formulated accordingly, require to be and implemented on the ground. It then becomes the ground-rock to transform the company’s focus – ‘through brands to patients’ to – ‘through patients to brands.’ Dovetailing this new marketing concept to a pan-organization initiative will call for new insight and wherewithal of the right kind.

When implemented by the right kind of people, this approach will encouragepatients to “pull” the demand of the selected brands, as they participate along with doctors in the drug selection part of the entire treatment process. The informed patients won’t hesitate posing questions to doctors – why ‘this’ drug is being prescribed and why not ‘that’ drug?’ The doctor would require responding with convincing answers in that situation. Some experts have termed this process as – an ‘outside in’ strategy.

Difference in impact – one ‘Incremental’, the other ‘transformative’:

It’s important to reiterate that the impact of digitalization for an ‘inside-out push strategy’, is generally incremental. Whereas, the same for ‘outside-in pull strategy’ is expected to be transformative in nature, not just in the business performance, but also the way pharma business is viewed and conducted as on date, especially in India.

Conclusion:

As I understand, process automation may be based on digital platforms and even with the application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) or robotics, the overall business process remains unchanged. It brings greater efficiency in the same business processes, improving employee productivity, and usually adds incremental success to brand performance.

Whereas, digitalization helps create a new way of achieving excellence – gaining a new insight for the business. This happens, first through generation, and then detail analysis of an enormous amount of relevant customer-centric data. Effective interpretation and use of the same, help transform the business – giving shape to new business processes for organizational distinction.

Simply speaking, automation improves the business efficiency with its key focus on ‘pushing brand prescription demand’, as much as possible. Whereas, digitalization aims at business transformation for a long-term organizational effectiveness. It creates a new purpose for business based on changing customer profile, across the organization. A sharp focus on delivering research-based and well-targeted customer values help ‘pulling brand prescription demand’, the decision of which is often jointly taken by the doctors and the patients or will happen that way even in India, sooner than later.

In this perspective, what we see in pharma marketing, generally in India, is automation of various types, of course, by using digital tools, platforms and even AI, in some cases. There isn’t anything wrong in that. But, digitization would call for much more. First, the core organizational focus to shift from being ‘brand-centric’ to ‘customer-centric’ for financial achievements, and then effectively delivering customer values through each ‘company-brand-customer interface’ and beyond that. This is essential for sustainable excellence of pharma players in the digital age.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Creating ‘Shared Value’ in Pharma – The Way Forward

Posted on July 30, 2018 by Tapan Ray

Many Pharmaceutical companies, both global and local, are struggling with a plethora of critical challenges. With the industry reputation diving south successful navigation through this headwind has become an onerous task, more than ever before.

Under this backdrop, the article, titled “Creating Shared Value” of Michael Porter and Mark Kramer, published in the Harvard Business Review (HBR) in its January – February 2011 issue, becomes very relevant to analyze the situation.

The paper says: “Companies are widely thought to be prospering at the expense of their communities. Trust in business has fallen to new lows, leading government officials to set policies that undermine competitiveness and sap economic growth. Business is caught in a vicious circle. A big part of the problem lies with companies themselves, which remain trapped in an outdated, narrow approach to value creation.”

The authors also articulated that pharma players, generally focus on optimizing short-term financial performance, overlooking the greatest unmet needs in the market as well as broader influences on their long-term success. They questioned: “Why else would companies ignore the well-being of their customers and the economic distress of the communities in which they produce and sell?”

Porter and Kramer advised the companies to bring business and society back together – redefining their purpose as creating “shared values”. It means generating economic value in a way that also produces value for society by addressing its challenges.In this article, I shall explore in this area.

Not CSR or Philanthropy, its engaging business as business, for social progress:

Creation of “Shared values” for a business is quite different from “Philanthropy” or “Corporate Social Responsivity (CSR)”. Philanthropy usually involves ‘donations to worthy social causes’ and CSR is primarily directed at compliance with community standards and good corporate citizenship. Whereas the creation of “shared value” means integrating societal improvement into economic value creation, making social improvement as an integral part of with a business model.

To create “shared values”, it is imperative for business organizations to create “social value” through active participation in addressing the social issues and needs related to the business. Or in other words, the creation of “shared values” would entail striking a right balance between “social value” and the “business value.”

An article titled “What Is the Social Value of Pharmaceuticals?”, published by FSG on February 13, 2014 dwells on the business relevance of creation of “social value” in the pharma industry. It writes,creation of “social value” corresponds to effecting positive change along the major societal challenges, such as affordable health care, by working more in collaboration with other stakeholders to address the needs of the underserved through commensurate value creation. This entails engagement of a business as a business, not as a charitable donor, nor through public relations, for social progress.

A resolution to create “shared value” in the pharma industry:

An interesting article, featured in SFGATE of the San Francisco Chronicle on July 11, 2018, elucidated that the reputations of drug makers have taken a hit over the past few years as the public and politicians have called out the companies for high prescription drug prices that even Americans are facing. Recently, President Donald Trump, reportedly, singled out the top pharma companies of the world for raising the list prices on some of its prescriptions.

Possibly it’s a sheer coincidence, but on the same day, an intent of creating “shared values” with the society got reflected in the statement of the president of the Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research. The officialexplained, why his company has a ‘contract with society’. He admitted that: The cost of health care, which has been rising has left many on the hook for a larger amount of their prescription drug cost that can place a big burden on patients in many countries, including the United States.

Consequently, the pressure from the people who need medications is now on the pharmaceutical companies for doing right, he added. Thus, Novartis feels:”We have a contract with society, and society is our shareholder. A company like ours exists to have a definitive impact on life threatening diseases, to keep people alive and healthy for a long, long time, full stop” – the official concluded.

A laudable intent, but is it credible?

The concept of pharma having a contract with the society ‘to keep people alive and healthy for a long, long time,’ is laudable, but is it credible? This question arises because, just before public articulation of this intent, the same company, reportedly, entered into USD 1.2-million contract with President Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, allegedly, to provide access to the US President.

The exact reason for the same is being investigated by competent authorities, including the US Senators. However, another report highlighted, “Novartis is among the drug companies that has put through significant price increases for its products since Trump took office in 2017 – in some cases more than 20 percent.”

Another repot of July 09, 2018, quoting a tweet of the US President, poured more cold water on the warm intent of pharma’s ‘contract with the society.’ According to this article President Trump tweeted: “Pfizer & others should be ashamed that they have raised drug prices for no reason. They are merely taking advantage of the poor & others unable to defend themselves, while at the same time giving bargain basement prices to other countries in Europe & elsewhere. We will respond!”

Consistently declining pharma’s image and public trust:

Many believe that due to such hyperbolic statements and conflicting actions of pharma, over a long period time, are driving down the public image and trust on the industry, in general, from deep to deeper level, which has not found its bottom, just yet.

The reality gets reflected in various well-recognized polls, conducted even in the top pharma market of the world, which is also one of the richest nations, globally. August 2017 Gallup Poll on ‘Business and Industry Sector Ratings,’ features pharma industry at the very bottom of the ranking, just above the Federal government.

The concern gets reverberated in the February 03, 2017 article titled, ‘How Pharma Can Fix Its Reputation and Its Business at the Same Time,’ published in the Harvard Business Review (HBR). The paper observes that the worrisome mix of little growth potential and low reputation prompts the pharma players, among other actions, developing new treatments for neglected populations, and pricing existing products at affordable levels – avoiding corruption and price collusion.

How will “shared value” creation help pharma?

The process of creating “shared values” will involve creating “social value” with all sincerity and a clearly defined purpose. Its outcome should be measurable, and the impact felt by the society. In tandem, striking a right balance between “social value” and the “business value” would call for a metamorphosis in the concept of doing business.

There aren’t too many examples of creation ‘shared values’ by pharma companies, yet. However, to illustrate this point, let me quote one such that was originated from India, which I had the privilege to observe closely. This initiative is ‘Arogya Parivar (healthy family) of Novartis in India.

‘Arogya Parivar’ is a ‘for-profit’ social initiative developed by Novartis to reach the under-served millions living at the bottom of the pyramid in rural India. As Novartis claims, since its launch in 2007, ‘Arogya Parivar’ is proving to be both a force for improving health in rural communities and a sustainable business. ‘Arogya Parivar’ is a commercially-viable program and began returning a profit after 30 months with sales increasing 25-fold, since launch. After successful implementation of this initiative in India, the company has created similar programs in Kenya, Indonesia and Vietnam, according to Novartis.

Conclusion:

The concept of ‘shared values’ emphasizes that business success of a company is closely related to the progress, development and wellbeing of the society where it transacts the business. This can be achieved by striking a right balance between the social need and the business need. In the pharma space too, the value creation in the business value chain may need to be redesigned to meet the ‘social value’. This happened as in the case of ‘Arogya Parivar’ initiative of Novartis in India.

Creating robust business models based on ‘shared values’, in sync with the business-specific needs of the society can help make more profit in areas where there is none, at present. It will also facilitate achieving additional growth of the organization and improve long-term competitiveness.

Consequently, pharma can earn recognition of the society as a powerful contributor for containing suffering and even death of many ailing patients, by increasing access to affordable medicines for those who need these most. This, in turn, would help pharma companies to improve their public image and reputation. Let me hasten to add that provided, of course, no countermeasures are taken by them, surreptitiously, as I have discussed above.

The good news is, some pharma players have already initiated action in this direction. Thus, I reckon, many of them would soon realize that creating ‘shared value – based’ business models are the way forward for sustainable business excellence.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Pharma Brand Building: Criticality of Enhancing End-To-End Customer Experience

Posted on July 2, 2018 by Tapan Ray

In today’s fast-changing world, the types of medicines being developed, the way technology contributes to health, and how the value of health care is calculated, are all undergoing a metamorphosis. A wave of cell and gene therapies are bending the definition of what constitutes a drug, both clinically, and in terms of expectations of outcomes, duration of treatment and costs. Global health is poised to meet a series of key turning points, and changes seen in 2018 will mark the key inflections that drive the outlook for the next five years and beyond.

These are examples of key observations, as captured in the March 13, 2018 research report, titled: “2018 and Beyond: Outlook and Turning Points,” of the IQVIA Institute (previously IMS Institute). Arising out of these, the report envisages the following key impacts on the pharma industry in the next five years – from 2018 to 2022:

Patent expiry impact will be 37 percent larger than the prior five years, including both small molecule and biologics.
New medicines’ growth will be slower in 2018 – 2022 than the period from 2013 -2017.
Net price levels for branded drugs will rise modestly in the United States at 2–5% per year but will fall in other developed markets.
Volume for existing branded and generic medicines will remain slow, with the ongoing shifts towards newer medicines over time.
To increase access to medicinesGovernment and other payers to focus on addressing outstanding healthcare disparities or to invest in approaches to address system inefficiencies.

Such a situation, would obviously impede performance and productivity of many pharma players – both research-based and also the generic ones, across the world, including India. Against this backdrop, I shall discuss about the criticality of ‘enhancing end-to-end customer experience’ in pharma brand building exercise. The words to specially take note of are – ‘end-to-end customer experience’ and not just in some ‘touchpoints’. This would help many pharma players to navigate through this strong headwind to remain in the organizational growth trajectory.

Not a solitary finding:

Another series of articles from Bain & Company, published on June 30, 2015, May 25, 2017, May 09 and May 23, 2018, not just reflect similar core concern, as articulated in the IQVIA article. Moreover, the barriers to deliver growth from the in-market portfolios being tough, many drug companies are using even steep price increases as a key lever to achieve their financial goals. It continues to happen, despite strong criticisms both from the public and some powerful governments, such as the United States and also India, further denting industry’s public reputation.

Pharma sales reps no longer a primary learning resource about medicines?

It also came out clearly from some of these articles that ‘doctors in many developed countries have been moving away from pharma sales representatives as a primary resource for learning about medicines.’ It’s just a matter of time, I reckon, similar situation will prevail in India. So, what do the pharma organizations do now – wait for a similar situation to arise and then act, or initiate a proactive strategic marketing process, as soon as possible?

Enhancing customer experience in pharma brand building:

To mitigate this, a new concept for improving market share is gaining ground. It suggests, the intrinsic value of a brand, and its value delivery system should enhance the customer experience during the entire treatment process with the drug. Achieving this would prompt widely capturing and in-depth analysis of targeted customer expectations, preferences and aversions. Just listening to a patient or a doctor won’t suffice, any longer, for a pharma company to succeed in business.

The February 24, 2017 article, titled “The Case For Managing By Customer Episode,” published in Forbes very aptly said, ‘companies that once relied on developing new product features and improving customer service increasingly see competitive advantage rooted in the entire experience that’s wrapped around the product.’

The same point has been corroborated in several research studies, since the last few years. For example, a 2014 survey by McKinsey & Company came out with some interesting findings. It highlighted, by optimizing customer experience at every ‘touchpoint’ – ensuring a reasonably seamless customer journey, a company can potentially increase its revenue by up to 15 percent and lower the customer service costs by 20 percent.

Another research article dated May 23, 2018, titled ‘Why “Episodes” Matter for Doctors’, published in the Pharmaceutical Executive finds that about 40 percent of a doctor’s drug recommendations are linked to how effectively a firm delivers an overall experience, as distinct from product-related attributes such as clinical data. This share rises to about 60 percent for factors within the control of the commercial organization. Doctors who give high marks for their experience with a company, are between 2.3 and 2.7 times more likely to prescribe the company’s products as those who give low marks.The authors further highlighted, loyalty scores run low, both for the average firm and for many individual episodes for the pharma industry as a whole. That’s because firms have focused mostly on pushing out sales and marketing messages through as many channels as possible.

Units of ‘customer experience’ management:

Different publications acknowledge the need to have some key unit for managing customer experience. These units are described in different names by different experts, such as ‘episode’ or ‘touchpoint’.

Bain & Company said, each ‘Episode’ covers all tasks that a customer requires to complete for fulfilling a need. For each unit of ‘episode’, the clock starts as a customer feels and identifies a related need and ends when these are met with his/her full satisfaction. ‘The sum of a customer’s episodes over time comprise the entire experience of dealing with the company.’ So far as ‘Touchpoints’ are concerned, according to McKinsey & Company, these are the individual transactions through which customers interact with parts of the business and its offerings. It reflects organization’s accountability and is relatively easy to build into operations.

Difference between ‘episode’ and ‘touchpoint’ in ‘customer experience’ management:

There is a difference between ‘episodes’ and ‘touchpoints’. Whereas ‘touchpoints’ are each point of contact or interaction, between a business and its customers,‘episodes’ focus on end-to-end design of a specific customer-need of an organization, as they align management and the front line around the customer experience.

Many companies believe that customers will be happy with the interaction when they connect with their product, customer service, sales staff, or marketing materials. However, McKinsey found that this siloed focus on individual touchpoints misses the bigger, and more important picture: the customer’s end-to-end experience or the ‘customer journey.’ It includes many things that happen before, during, and after the experience of a product or service. The companies providing the customer with the best experience from start to finish along the journey can expect to enhance customer satisfaction, improve sales and retention, reduce end-to-end service cost, and strengthen employee satisfaction.

Thus, only by looking at the customer’s experience through his or her own eyes, throughout the entire journey taken – a company can begin to understand how to meaningfully improve its performance.

Focus areas to create an exemplary customer experience:

According to Bain & Company there are 5 imperatives to focus on to create an exemplary customer experience, which I summarize, as follows:

Examine the experience from the outside in – from the customer’s point of view, not the organization’s structure and processes.
Meet customer expectations consistently.
Invest to provide outstanding experiences in the areas that have the greatest impact on customer advocacy.
Use rapid prototypes to deliver new services to customers.
Develop closed-loop feedback processes, continuously refining experiences to match or exceed ever-rising customer expectations.

Conclusion:

The mediocre performance of the pharma industry, especially, since the last few years, is bothering many stakeholders.The challenges to deliver business growth from in-market portfolios, coupled with frequent backlashes for using steep product price increase as a key lever to achieve financial goals, are some of the key causal factors.

Enhancing ‘customer experience’ in the process of pharma brand building initiatives, has also caught the imagination of some players. This is commendable. Nonetheless, several research studies indicate, if these are focused on individual customer-‘touchpoint’ based strategies, which, I reckon, is rather common, the outcome may remain quite far from expectations.

What really matters, is enhancing end-to-end experience with a brand – throughout a patient’s journey for disease prevention or effective treatment or even cure. This may, for example, begin with the search for effective and affordable treatment options – participating in arriving at the right treatment – prescription of right drugs, and finally receiving continuous requisite guidance throughout the course of treatment for better management of the disease or effective cure. Thus, pharma brand building by enhancing end-to-end ‘customer experience’, now assumes a critical strategic dimension.

By: Tapan J. Ray

‘Diversity And Inclusion’: A Missing Link For Indian Pharma

Posted on June 25, 2018 by Tapan Ray

Inadequate access to affordable health care to a vast majority of the population has been a favorite topic of debate, since long, globally. This discourse is generally centered around the least developed and the developing world, such as India. However, in the recent time, the reverberations of the same can be heard even from the most developed countries, like the United States.

Possible solutions in this area generally encompass several tangible issues, e.g. high cost of drugs and care, alleged unethical practices of the providers, infrastructure bottlenecks – to name a few. Curiously, despite the availability of an increasing number of innovative drugs, state of the art facilities and diagnostics, brilliant healthcare professionals and so on, disparities in the degree of access to all these, between different members of the civil society, keep steadily mounting.

This cascading socioeconomic issue, creating a widening the trust deficit, especially on pharma, throws a critical management challenge for long term sustainability of business, if not survival too.

Transformation to a customer-oriented, profit-making organization:

Building a profit-making organization is not an easy task. However, transforming a profit-making organization to a profit making through customer-centric policies, is several times more challenging. That’s because, making a true external customer-centric organization gets kick started from a significant cultural change within the organization. Systematically creating a pool of requisite internal customers (employees), with diverse background, experience, gender, belief, perspective, talent and, more importantly, ably supported by the organizational vision of inclusion, forms the nerve center of this transformative process. No doubt, why the quality of ‘Diversity and Inclusion (DI)’ culture of an organization is assuming the importance of a differential success factor in business excellence.

The August 25, 2016 E&Y article, titled “Embracing customer experience in the pharmaceutical industry” epitomizes its relevance by articulating: “It is the companies that focus on continuously delivering a better customer experience to build a trusted and transparent relationship over time that will win in the market. They will not only acquire customers that will remain loyal, but also win advocates that will refer the company or brand to more customers.”

The missing link:

It is now being widely established that creating a culture of ‘Diversity and Inclusion (DI)’ across the organization, is of critical importance to maintain sustainable business excellence, with a win-win outcome. Going a step forward, I reckon, although, this is an arduous task for any organization, but an essential one – even for long-term survival of a business. However, today, the very concept of DI is apparently a ‘missing link’ in the chain of sustainable organizational-building initiatives, particularly for most Indian pharma companies.

The role of DI in making a customer-centric business:

Health care customers, like many others, are generally of diverse backgrounds, financial status, ethnicity, gender, health care needs, expectations, and also in their overall perspective. Thus, to make a customer-centric organization for greater market success, and drive product and service innovation accordingly, pharma companies need to deeply understand them, empathetically. A competent pool of well-selected employees with diverse backgrounds, race, ethnicity, gender, perspectives, could facilitate this process, more effectively. However, the company should also create an environment and culture of inclusion for all to listen to each other’s well-reasoned views – expressed uninhibited and fearlessly for this purpose.

In making this process more effective to add a huge tangible and intangible worth to the business, pharma players need to untether the employee potential through empowerment, making them feel valued and grow. This would also help immensely in charting newer pathways of all-round success in many other high-voltage complexities of pharma business.

‘Why diversity matters’?

That diversity within an organization matters in several ways, has been established in several studies. For example, the February 2015 article, titled “Why diversity matters”, of McKinsey & Company says, “More diverse companies are better able to win top talent, and improve their customer orientation, employee satisfaction, and decision making, leading to a virtuous cycle of increasing returns.” The analysis found a statistically significant relationship between a more diverse leadership team and better financial performance (measured as average EBIT 2010–2013).

Why is inclusion so important?

In a large number of organizations that include Indian pharma, senior management staffs generally seem to appreciate hearing more of what they want to hear. This culture quickly percolates top-down – encompassing the entire company, probably with a few exceptions. Personal ‘likes’ and ‘dislikes’ of various nature and degree spread wings within many organizations. Such a situation is created from intrinsic apathy to patiently listen to and accept another employee’s viewpoint – even on critical customer-centric issues. Employees, in that process, also get branded as ‘argumentative’ and often ‘disloyal’, if not a ‘socialist’. The major decisions often get biased accordingly – sometimes unknowingly.

Whereas, inclusion entails empowerment and close involvement of a diverse pool of employees with dignity, by recognizing their intrinsic worth and value. Moving towards a culture of inclusion would require creation of an organizational desire to communicate professionally and learn how to listen to each other’s well-thought-through arguments with interest.

The business should accept that it is not really important in getting along with everybody on all issues – every time. Neither, does it make sense for professionals to develop personal ‘likes’ or ‘dislikes’ on other fellow colleagues, based on issue-based differences, while finding out ways and means to improve organizational performance, image or reputation. Inclusion helps employees to learn to work closely, despite personal differences on all important issues.

Has Global pharma industry started imbibing DI?

Yes, many global pharma majors, such as, GSK, Novartis and Merck and several others, have started practicing DI as a way of organizational life and culture. Some of them like GSK India has put it on its country website. But, generally in India, the scenario is not quite similar. Though, many head honchos in the country talk about DI, the February 16, 2017 edition of Bloomberg/Quint carried a headline “Most Indian Companies Do Not Value Diversity At Board-Level Hirings,” quoting Oxfam India.

A voluntary survey of ‘company diversity’ conducted by US-based DiversityInc at Princeton, ranks the companies on four key areas of diversity management: talent pipeline, equitable talent development, CEO/leadership commitment, and supplier diversity. It revealed an interesting fact in its 2016 study. The survey reported, while diversity continues to improve in the overall perspective, its ‘Pharma 50’, as a group, ‘is right in the middle of the industry pack when benchmarked against the Fortune 500.’ The survey also brought to light significant differences in the levels of gender, national, and ethnic diversity even at the company boards and executive committees of individual companies. Nonetheless, some global pharma entities are taking significant steps in this direction. But, these are still early days in many organizations.

Conclusion:

The E&Y article quoted above, also says that pharma “customers are becoming resistant to push sales and marketing, and are instead preferring to relate to the overall experience provided in their pull interactions with the company. The customer experience will be the next battleground for the pharmaceutical industry. The deployment of a customer experience capability is a transformational journey in often unchartered territories. The key to success is to start early and drive a process that is both rigorous and iterative, allowing the organization – and its customers – to learn along the way and always to be ready with the next best action in place.” DI, I reckon, plays a critical role in attaining this goal.

Pharma companies are also realizing that building a profit-making organization with blockbuster high-priced, high-profit making molecules, such as Sovaldi is possible, but this may not be sustainable. It isn’t an easy task either, not anymore. There lies the urgency of transforming a profit-making organization to a profit making through customer-centric business entity. This process, I repeat, is several times more challenging, but the business success is much more sustainable.

Organizational transformation of this nature is prompting the global pharma majors to use Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) while achieving their key financial and people goals. Both D (Diversity) and I (inclusion) work in tandem for taking any fairness-based organizational decisions, irrespective of whether it’s staff or customer decision.

DI has the potential to help an organization to create and chart new and more productive pathways almost in all functions within the company – right from R&D, communication, service delivery to market access. In all these initiatives, customer focus to occupy the center stage – for a win-win outcome – significantly reducing the degree of difficulty for access to affordable medicines. DI is not a panacea to mitigate this problem totally, but would help significantly, nonetheless – with the help of employees with diverse background but having fresh eyes. Many global pharma majors have initiated action in this direction. However, in Indian pharma business generally, DI still remains a missing link, as it is seen today.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Key Drivers And Long-Term Impact of Pharma M&A in India

Posted on May 21, 2018 by Tapan Ray

Corporate M&A is increasingly considered an integral part of the organization’s growth strategy for value creation, by a large number of pharma companies, across the world. In tandem, it throws open many other doors of opportunities, such as reduction of business risks and massive corporate restructuring.

In the post globalization era, mostly the large to medium sized Indian players are imbibing this strategy to gain a competitive edge, in the highly crowded generic drug market, not just in India, but also in various other parts of the world. At the same time, it is equally true that there are many other pharma biggies who have moved into the top 10 of the domestic league table in India, following mainly the organic growth path, and are still staying that way.

For example, the league table ranking (MAT October 2017) of the Indian domestic pharma market, published by AIOCD Pharmasofttech AWACS Pvt. Ltd, reflects a similar scenario. It shows, not many local Indian drug players seem to be too aggressive in Merger and Acquisition (M&A) within the country. In fact, among companies featuring in the TOP 10, only around half seems to have not gone for any major domestic M&A. The remaining half pursued a predominantly organic route, for a quantum growth in the Indian market.

In this article, I shall try to fathom, both the critical drivers and the long-term impact of pharma M&A initiatives – both inbound and outbound, with their either origin or destination being in India.

Are the key drivers different?

India is overwhelmingly a branded generic market. So are its key players. Thus, most pharma M&As in India are related to generic drugs.

Thus, unlike research-based global pharma players, where one of the most critical drivers for M&A, is related to new drug innovation to maintain sustained growth of the organization, the drivers for the same in India is somewhat different. Neither are these exactly the same for exports and the domestic market, with occasional overlaps in a few cases, though.

Export markets:

To expand and grow the pharma business in the export markets is obviously the main overall objectives. To attain this, the acquiring companies generally take into consideration some common critical factors, among others. Each of which is carefully assessed while going through the valuation process and arriving at the final deal price for the company to be acquired. A few examples of which are as follows:

The span and quality of market access and the future scope for value addition
Opportunities for value creation with available generic products, active ANDAs and DMFs
A competitive portfolio, especially covering specialty products, novel drug delivery systems and even off-patent biologic drugs
Market competitors’ profile
Product sourcing alternatives and other available assets

Domestic market:

Similarly, in the domestic market too, there could be several critical drivers. The following, may be cited just as an illustration. There could well be some overlaps here, as well, with those of export markets:

Moving up the pharma value chain, e.g., from bulk drug producer to formulation producer with marketing, intending to climb further up
A new range and type of the generic product portfolio
Expansion of therapeutic and geographic reach
Expansion of consumers and customers base
Greater reach, depth, efficiency and productivity of the distribution channel
Acquiring critical manufacturing and other related tangible and intangible assets

A glimpse at the 2016-17 M&A trend in India:

An E&Y paper titled, “Transactions 2017” says, India continues to enjoy a prominent position in the global generic pharma space, due to many preferred advantages available within the country, such as a large number of USFDA approved sites coupled with low Capex and operating costs. As a result, the pharmaceuticals sector witnessed 51 pharma deals in the year 2016, with an aggregate disclosed deal value of USD4.6 billion.

However, according to Grant Thornton Advisory Pvt. Ltd, there have been around 27 M&A deals in pharma and healthcare sector by Q3 2017, valued at USD719 million. This appears to be way below 54 deals, valued at USD4.7 billion in calendar year 2016.

Cross-border activity dominated the sector:

Highlighting that cross-border activity dominated the sector, the E&Y paper said, “outbound and domestic transactions drove most of the deal activity, with 21 deals each. In terms of the disclosed deal value, outbound and inbound activity stood at USD2.1 billion each. Domestic deal-making was concentrated in smaller value bands with an aggregate deal value of USD342 million, of which USD272 million (4 deals) worth of deals were restructuring deals.”

Inbound and a domestic M&A occupied the center stage:

It is interesting to note that despite initial hiccups, inbound overseas interest in sterile injectable continued, along with a range of different generic formulations. The notable among which, as captured in the above paper, are as follows:

China-based Shanghai Fosun Pharmaceutical (Group) Company Limited announced the acquisition of an 86 percent stake in Gland Pharma Limited for up to USD1.26 billion.

US-based Baxter International Inc. entered into an agreement to acquire Claris Injectable Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of Claris Lifesciences Limited, for USD625 million.

In November 2017, India’s Torrent Pharmaceuticals acquired more than 120 brands from Unichem Laboratories in India and Nepal, and its manufacturing plant at Sikkim for USD558 million.

Outbound M&A:

Facing continuous pricing and other pressures in the largest pharma market in the world – United States, Indian pharma players sharpened their focus on Europe and other under-penetrated markets, with a wider range of product portfolio. Following are a few examples of recent outbound M&As for the year, done predominantly to serve the above purpose, besides a couple of others with smaller deal values:

Intas Pharma, through its wholly owned subsidiary inked an agreement to acquire Actavis UK Limited and Actavis Ireland Limited from Teva Pharmaceutical for an enterprise value of USD767 million.

Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories entered into an agreement with Teva Pharmaceutical and an affiliate of Allergan plc to acquire a portfolio of eight ANDAs in the US for USD350 million.

Sun Pharma stepped into the Japanese prescription drug market by acquiring 14 brands from Novartis for USD293 million.

Lupin also strengthened its position in Japan by acquiring 21 products from Shionogi & Company Limited for USD150 million. In 2017, Lupin also acquired US-based Symbiomix Therapeutics – a privately held company focused on bringing innovative therapies to market for gynecologic infections. The acquisition value stands at USD 150 million.

Two other relatively large outbound acquisitions in 2017 were Piramal Enterprises’ acquisition of anti-spasticity and pain management drug portfolio of Mallinckrodt for USD171 million and Aurobindo Pharma’s Generis Farmaceutica USD142.5 million.

Long term business impact of M&A on the merged entity:

So far so good. Nevertheless, a key point to ponder, what is the long-term impact of M&A on the merged entities in India. It may impact several critical areas, such as financial ratios, reputation on drug quality standards or even its impact on employee morale. Sun Pharma’s acquisition of Ranbaxy in 2015 may be an example in this regard. Not too many credible studies are available for Indian pharma companies in this regard, it could be an interesting area for further research, though.

A research paper titled “Post-Merger Performance of Acquiring Firms: A Case Study on Indian Pharmaceutical Industry”, published by the International Journal of Research in Management & Business Studies (IJRMBS), in its July-September 2015 issue, captured an interesting point. It found, that M&As have a significant impact on the merged company performance as compared to the pre-merger period, but the impact is evident more in the immediate year after the merger.

The paper concluded, although the profitability had improved in the merged company as indicated in the financial ratios, like PBIT, Cash Profit margin and Net profit margin, but the improvement in the performance is observed only up to 1 year of the merger. As far as operating performance is concerned the short term positive impact can be observed, but again it lasts up to 1 year only. The overall study results, therefore, indicate the positive impact of merger on the operating and financial performance only in the short run (+1 year).

Is it a mixed bag?

Nevertheless, there are also other studies in this regard, which concluded the favorable impact of M&As on corporate performance. However, those studies adopted certain other parameters of measuring the financial and operational improvements in the merged companies. Some more research findings in this area – ferreted out from literature review and are available in the same issue of IJRMBS), revealing a mixed bag. Let me quote some these findings, starting from the earlier years, as follows:

Kruze, Park and Suzuki (2003): With a sample of 56 mergers of manufacturing companies from the period 1969 to 1997 concluded that the long term operating performance of control firms was positive but insignificant and high correlation existed between pre and post-merger performance.

Beena (2004): Analyzed the pre and post-merger performance of firms belonging to pharma manufacturing industries with samples of 115 acquiring firms between the period 1995 and 2000. For the purpose of analysis four sets of financial ratios were considered and it was tested using t –test. The study showed no improvement in the performance, as compared to the pre-merger period for the sample companies.

Vanitha. S and Selvam. M (2007): With a sample of 58, to study the impact of merger on the performance in the Indian manufacturing sector from 2000 to 2002, the study concluded, overall financial performance is insignificant for 13 variables.

Pramod Mantravadi and Vidyadhar Reddy (2008): Investigated a sample of 118 cases of mergers in their study. They found, more impact of merger was noticed on the profitability of banking and finance industry, pharmaceutical, textile and electric equipment sector, whereas the significant decline was seen in chemical and Agri-Products sector.

More Indian studies are expected in this interesting area to understand the possible long-term impact of pharma M&A in India.

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, inbound and outbound consolidation and expansion of the Indian pharma industry through M&A will continue. However, this likely to happen at a varying pace, depending upon both the opportunities and constraints for business growth. This will include both in the export and the domestic markets.

Increasingly complex business environment, intense drug pricing pressure in the US, dwindling much differentiated product pipeline, impending patent expiry of blockbuster drugs, will drive the inbound M&A. Whereas, the domestic players would like to spread their wings in search of greater market access, across the world. This process is likely to include a different type of product-mix, including specialty and biologic products, creating some barrier to market entry for many other generic players.

Going forward, the critical drivers for pharma M&A in India, both inbound and outbound, are unlikely to undergo any radical change. Interestingly, available research studies regarding its long-term impact on the companies involved in this process are not yet conclusive. However, many researchers on the subject still believe, especially the financial impact of M&As on the merged entities in India last no more than short to medium term.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Organic and Inorganic Growth Strategy For Sustainable Business Excellence

Posted on April 30, 2018 by Tapan Ray

For an enthusiast, witnessing any organization growing consistently, is indeed exhilarating. This becomes even more interesting at a time when challenges and frequent surprises in the business environment become a new normal. A robust short, medium and long growth strategy turns out to be a necessity for sustaining the business excellence over a long period of time. This is applicable even to the pharma players in India.

The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of an organization usually assumes the role of chief architect of this strategy, which needs to be subsequently approved by the Board of Directors of the company concerned, collectively. The Board holds the CEO, who ultimately carries the can, accountable to deliver the deliverables in creating the desired shareholder value.

Two basic types of growth strategies:

Based on the CEO’s own experience, and also considering the expectations of the Board of Directors, together with the investors, the CEO opts for either of these two following types of basic growth strategies, or a mix of these two in varying proportions:

Organic growth: Growing the business through company’s own pursued activities, or all growth strategies sans Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) or by any other means not external to the organization.
Inorganic growth: Growing the business through M&A or takeovers.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with either of these two types of basic growth strategies, or their mix in varying proportions. Nevertheless, it is generally believed that with the basic ‘Organic’ growth plan, the companies, or rather their CEOs have a greater degree of sustainable control in various critical areas. These often include, retaining senior management focus on the organizational core strength for sustainable excellence, or even maintaining the organizational culture and people management style, without any possible conflict in these areas.

In this article, I shall explore different aspects of these two basic growth strategies for sustainable business excellence. To illustrate the point better, I shall draw upon examples from two large but contrasting pharma companies. Let me begin this discussion with the following question:

When does a company choose predominantly inorganic growth path?

Its answer has been well articulated in an article of the Harvard Business Review (HBR). It says: “High-growth companies become low growth all the time. Many CEOs accept that as an inevitable sign that their businesses have matured, and so they stop looking internally for big growth. Instead, they become serial acquirers of smaller companies or seek a transformative acquisition of another large business, preferably a high-growth one.”

That said, none can deny that the short to medium term growth of a company following M&A is much faster and its market share and size become much larger than any comparable organizations pursuing the ‘Organic Growth’ path. Thus, more often than not, such initiatives create a ‘domino effect’, especially in the pharma industry, across the world.

Inorganic growth and key management challenges:

The short and medium-term boost in organizational performance post M&A, comes with its complexities in meeting similar expectations of the Company Board, shareholders and the investors, over a long period of time. This is besides all other accompanying issues, such as people related and more importantly in setting the future direction of the company. The cumulative impact of all this, propels the CEO to go all out for a similar buying spree. When it doesn’t materialize, as was expected, both the Board and the CEO are caught in a catch 22 situation. As mentioned earlier, I shall illustrate this point, with the following recent example covering some important areas.

The examples:

“Please don’t go, Ian Read. That’s the message Pfizer’s board of directors has made loud and clear to the almost-65-year-old CEO, who could very well retire with a $15.7 million pension package.” This is what appeared in an international media report on March 16, 2018.

Analyzing the current challenges faced by the company, the media report interpreted the indispensability of Ian Read in an interesting way. It reported: “The pharma giant considers Read the most qualified person to steer the company through a host of challenges, from oncology trial disappointments to investor pressure to make a big acquisition.” Investors are also, reportedly, sending clear signals to the CEO about the tough road ahead.

Thus, Ian Read “who turns 65 in May, also must remain CEO through at least next March and not work for a competitor for a minimum of two years after that to be eligible,” reported Bloomberg on March 16, 2018. It is interesting to note at this point that Mr. Read has been the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Pfizer – the world’s largest pharmaceutical company, since 2010.

A different CEO rated as ‘Top Performing’ pharma leader:

Pfizer CEO’s ‘exemplary leadership and vision’, has been captured in the Proxy Statement by the Independent Directors on the Board of the Company. However, Harvard Business Review (HBR) in its 2016 pan-industry ranking of the “best-performing” CEOs in the world, featured Lars Rebien Sorensen – the then outgoing CEO of Novo Nordisk. He topped the list for the second successive year. Sorensen achieved this distinction ‘Mostly, for his role overseeing astonishing returns for shareholders and market capitalization growth.’ All the CEOs were, reportedly, evaluated by HBR on a variety of financial, environmental, social, and governance metrics.

Interestingly, in the 2017 HBR list for the same, when the Novo Nordisk CEO was out of the race, no pharma CEO could achieve this distinction or even a place in the top 10. Pablo Isla of Inditex (Spanish clothing retailer), Martin Sorrell of WPP (PR major in the UK) and Jensen Huang of NVIDIA (American technology company occupied the number 1, 2 and 3 spots, respectively.

Two interesting leadership examples:

I shall not delve into any judgmental interpretations on any aspect of leadership by comparing the Pfizer CEO with his counterpart in Novo Nordisk. Nevertheless, one hard fact cannot be ignored. The accomplishments of Pfizer CEO were evaluated by its own Board and were rated outstanding. Whereas, in case of Novo Nordisk CEO, besides the company’s own Board, his performance evaluation was done by the outside independent experts on the HBR panel.

Was there any difference in their growth strategy?

Possibly yes. There seems to be, at least, one a key difference in the ‘growth strategy’ of these two large pharma players.

Novo Nordisk is primarily driven by ‘Organic growth’ with a focused product portfolio on predominantly diabetes disease area, besides hemophilia, growth disorders and obesity. This has been well captured in the company’s statement on February 6, 2017 where it says: “Organic growth enables steady cash returns to shareholders via dividends and share repurchase programs” and is driven by its Insulin portfolio.

Whereas, Pfizer, though in earlier days followed an ‘organic’ growth path, subsequently changed to ‘Inorganic Growth’ route. Pfizer’s mega acquisitions, in its quest for faster growth to be the world’s largest pharma player, include Warner Lambert (2000), Pharmacia (2002) and Wyeth (2009). The key purpose of these acquisitions appears to expand into a diversified product portfolio of blockbuster drugs.

Pfizer did contemplate changing course:

In 2010, barely two weeks on the job of CEO, Pfizer Inc., Ian Read indicated breaking up the company into two core businesses. However, after six years of meticulous planning, on September 26, 2016, the company announced: “After an extensive evaluation, the company’s Board of Directors and Executive Leadership Team have determined the company is best positioned to maximize future shareholder value creation in its current structure and will not pursue splitting Pfizer Innovative Health and Pfizer Essential Health into two, separate publicly traded companies at this time.”

Sustained value creation following the same path not easy:

After the decision to operate as one company and consolidate the business pursuing similar ‘Inorganic Growth’ strategy, Pfizer went ahead full throttle to acquire AstraZeneca for USD119 billion. But, on May 19, 2014, AstraZeneca Board rejected it. Again, on April 05, 2017, Reuters reported, “Pfizer Inc. agreed on Tuesday to terminate its $160 billion agreement to acquire Botox maker Allergan Plc, in a major victory to U.S. President Barack Obama’s drive to stop tax-dodging corporate mergers.”

Apparently, the current Pfizer CEO is now expected to finish his unfinished agenda, at least for the short to medium term, as the current blockbuster drugs continue losing the steam.

Conclusion:

It’s a common belief that slowing down of a company’s business performance is a compelling reason for its switch from the ‘Organic’ to ‘Inorganic’ growth strategy. The new CEO of Novo Nordisk – Lars Fruergaard Jorgensen also appears to subscribe to this view. While, reportedly, including negative growth at the low end in constant currencies in its guidance for 2017, Jorgensen apparently, confided that M&A will now be a part of the company’s growth search.

On facing a similar situation, the above HBR article suggested the CEOs to fight the short-term pressures of the business cycle of moving away from the ‘Organic’ growth path. This can be overcome by various means, as good ideas for organic growth can always attract required resources and support.

While choosing an appropriate basic growth strategy for the organization – ‘Organic’ or ‘Inorganic’, the CEO’s focus should be on what is best for sustainable and long-term business performance, without being trapped by the prevailing circumstances. Thus, addressing the internal causative factors, effectively, would likely to be a better idea in resolving the issue of a sustainable business performance. This is regardless of the underlying reasons, such as gradually drying up the new product pipeline while blockbuster drugs are going off patent, or due to several other different reasons.

Nevertheless, in the balance of probability, ‘Organic’ growth strategy appears to be less complex and is fraught with lower business risks and uncertainties. Consequently, it reflects a greater likelihood of sustainable achievements for the CEO, and in tandem, a long-term financial reward for the shareholders, investors, and finally the organization as a whole.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Should ‘Pharma Marketing’ Be In The Line of Fire?

Posted on November 27, 2017 by Tapan Ray

Close to half a century ago, Peter Drucker – the Management Guru wrote: As the purpose of business is to create customers, any business enterprise has two basic functions: marketing and innovation. Drucker’s concept is so fundamental in nature that it will possibly never change, ever.

That innovation is the lifeblood of pharma industry is well-accepted by most people, if not all. However, when similar discussion focuses on pharma marketing, the industry virtually exposes itself in the line of fire, apparently from all directions. This trend, coupled with a few more in other areas, is making a significant dent in the reputation of the pharma industry, triggering a chain of events that create a strong headwind for business growth.

The consequences of such dent in pharma reputation get well-reflected in an article titled “How Pharma Can Fix Its Reputation and Its Business at the Same Time,” published in the Harvard Business Review (HBR) on February 3, 2017. The author observed:

“This worrisome mix of little growth potential and low reputation is the main explanation for why investors are increasingly interested in how pharma companies manage access-to-medicine opportunities and risks, which range from developing new treatments for neglected populations and pricing existing products at affordable levels to avoiding corruption and price collusion.”

On the above backdrop, this article will try to explore the relevance of Drucker’s ‘marketing’ concept in the pharma business – dispassionately. Alongside, I shall also deliberate on the possibility of a general misunderstanding, or misinterpretation of facts related to ‘pharma marketing’ activities, as these are today.

Communicating the intrinsic value of medications:

Moving in this direction, let me recapitulate what ‘pharma marketing’ generally does for the patients – through the doctors.

Despite being lifeblood that carries the intrinsic value of a medication from research lab to manufacturing plants and finally to patients, ‘pharma marketing’ is, unfortunately under incessant public criticism. It continues to happen, regardless of the fact that one of the key responsibilities of pharma players is to disseminate information on their drugs to the doctors, for the benefits of patients.

One may justifiably question any ‘marketing practice’ that is not patient-friendly. However, the importance of ‘marketing’ in the pharma business can’t just be wished away – for patients’ sake.

Way back in 1994, the article titled, “The role and value of pharmaceutical marketing” captured its relevance, aptly articulated:

“Pharmaceutical marketing is the last element of an information continuum, where research concepts are transformed into practical therapeutic tools and where information is progressively layered and made more useful to the health care system. Thus, transfer of information to physicians through marketing is a crucial element of pharmaceutical innovation. By providing an informed choice of carefully characterized agents, marketing assists physicians in matching drug therapy to individual patient needs. Pharmaceutical marketing is presently the most organized and comprehensive information system for updating physicians about the availability, safety, efficacy, hazards, and techniques of using medicines.”

The above relevance of ‘pharma marketing’, whether globally or locally, remains unchanged, even today, and would remain so, at least, in the foreseeable future.

It’s a serious business:

As many would know, in many respect ‘pharma marketing’, especially of complex small and large molecules, is quite a different ball game, altogether. It’s markedly different from marketing activities in most other industries, including Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG), where customers and consumers are generally the same.

In contrast, in prescription drug market customers are not the consumers. In fact, most consumers of any prescription medicine don’t really know much, either about the drugs or their prices. They get to know about their costs while actually paying for those directly or indirectly. Healthcare providers, mostly in those countries that provide Universal Healthcare (UHC) in any form, may also be customers for the drug manufacturers. Even Direct to Consumer (DTC) drug advertisements, such as in the United States, can’t result into a direct choice for self-medication, other than Over the Counter (OTC) drugs.

Additionally, pharma market is highly regulated with a plethora of Do’s and Don’ts, unlike most other industries. Thus, for the drug manufacturers, medical professionals are the real customers, whereas patients are the consumers of medicines, as and when prescribed by doctors.

With this perspective, ‘Pharma marketing’ assumes a critical importance. It is too serious a strategic business process to be jettisoned by any. There exists a fundamental responsibility for the drug manufacturers to communicate important information on various aspects of drugs to individual physicians, in the interest of patients. This has to happen, regardless of any controversy in this regard, though the type of communication platforms, contents used and the degree of leveraging technology in this process may widely vary from company to company.

Assuming that the marketing practices followed by the industry players would be ethical and the regulators keep a strict vigil on the same, effective marketing of a large number of competing molecules or similar brand increases competition, significantly. In that process, it should ultimately enable physicians to prescribe drugs that will suit each patient the most, in every way. There can’t possibly be any other alternative to this concept.

A common allegation:

Despite these, a common allegation against ‘pharma marketing’ keeps gathering momentum. Reports continue pouring in that pharma companies spend far more on marketing drugs than on developing them. One such example is a stinging article, published by the BBC News on November 6, 2014.

Quoting various published reports as evidence, this article highlighted that – 9 out of 10 large pharma players spend more on marketing than R&D. These examples are generally construed as testimony for the profiteering motive of the pharma companies.

Is the reason necessarily so?

As any other knowledge-based industry, effective communication process of complex product information with precision, to highly knowledgeable medical professionals individually, obviously makes pharma marketing cost commensurately high. If the entire process of marketing remains fair, ethical and patient centric, such costs may get well-neutralized by the benefits accrued from the medicines, including lesser cost of drugs driven by high competition.

Further, a successful pharma marketing campaign is the ultimate tool that ensures a reasonable return on investments for further fund allocation, although in varying degree, to offer more new drugs to patients – both innovative and generics.

Marketing decision-support data generation is also cost-intensive:

Achieving short, medium and long-term growth objectives are as fundamental in pharma as in any other business. This prompts that investments made on ‘pharma marketing’, fetch commensurate returns, year after year. To succeed in this report, one of the prime requirements is to ensure that the content, platform and ultimate delivery of the product communication is based on current and credible research data having statistical significance.

With increasing brand proliferation, especially in competing molecules or branded generic market, arriving at cutting-edge brand differentiation has also become more challenging than ever before. Nevertheless, identification of well-differentiated patient-centric product value offerings will always remain ‘a must’ for any persuasive brand communication to be effective.

It calls for generating a vast amount of custom made decision-support data on each aspect of ‘pharma marketing’, such as target market, target patients, target doctors, competitive environment, differential value offering, and scores of others. The key to success in this effort is to come out with that ‘rare commodity’ that separates men from the boys. This is cost intensive.

What ails pharma marketing, then?

So far so good – the real issue is not, therefore, whether ‘pharma marketing’ deserves to be in the line of fire. The raging debate on what ails ‘pharma marketing’ should primarily focus on – how to ensure that this process remains ethical and fair, for all.

Thus, when criticism mounts on related issues, it may not necessarily mean that ‘marketing’ is avoidable in the pharma business. Quite often, critics do mix-up between the crucial ‘importance of pharma marketing’ and ‘malpractices in pharma marketing.’ Consequently, public impressions take shape, believing that the pharma marketing expenses are generally higher due to malpractices with profiteering motives.

As a result, we come across reports that draw public attention with conclusions like: “Imagine an industry that generates higher profit margins than any other and is no stranger to multi-billion dollar fines for malpractice.”

A similar article published ‘Forbes’ on February 18, 2015 also reiterates: “The deterioration of pharma’s reputation comes from several sources, not the least of which is the staggering amount of criminal behavior that has resulted in billions of dollars’ worth of fines levied against the industry.”

One cannot deny these reports – lock, stock and barrel, either. Several such articles named many large pharma players, both global and local.

Conclusion:

In my view, only pharma marketers with a ‘can do’ resolve will be able to initiate a change in this avoidable perception. No-one else possibly can do so with a total success in the foreseeable future – not even the requirement of a strict compliance with any mandatory code having legal teeth, such as mandatory compliance of the Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) that the Indian Government is currently mulling.

I guess so because, after a strong deterrent like mandatory UCPMP is put in place, if reports on marketing malpractices continue to surface, it will invite more intense public criticism against ‘pharma marketing’ – pushing the industry’s reputation further downhill, much faster.

Be that as it may, it’s high time for all to realize, just because some pharma players resort to malpractices, the ‘pharma marketing’ process, as such, doesn’t deserve to be in the line of fire – in any way.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Healthcare in India And Hierarchy of Needs

Posted on November 6, 2017 by Tapan Ray

“Russia and India climb World Bank’s Doing Business rankings”, was a headline in the Financial Times on October 31, 2017. India jumped 30 places – from 130 out of 190. Almost instantly, the domestic media flashed it all across the country, as the prime news item of the day. It brought great satisfaction to many, and very rightly so.

The news is also worth cheering as it ignites the hope of a large section of the society that sometime in the future more business will come into the country, more jobs will be created, and in that process India will emerge as a more healthy and wealthy nation, just as many other countries around the world.

This loud cheer, in tandem, also transcends into a hope for a well-oiled public healthcare system functioning efficiently in India, alongside greater wealth creation. This is because, while expecting a healthier nation, one can’t possibly keep the public healthcare system of the country out of it, altogether. Thus, I reckon, it won’t be quite out of place to have a quick look at India’s current ranking on other healthcare related indices too, such as ‘Healthcare Index’ and ‘Human Development Index’ and ‘Hunger Index’:

Healthcare index:

With that perspective, when go through the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016, published in The Lancet on September 16, 2017, it will be difficult to wish away the fact that India ranks 154 among 195 countries in ‘Healthcare Index’. Surprisingly, India ranks much behind Sri Lanka (72.8), Bangladesh (51.7), Bhutan (52.7) and Nepal (50.8) though, of course, above Pakistan (43.1) and Afghanistan (32.5). This is what it is, regardless of the fact that India’s Healthcare Access and Quality (HAQ) index has increased by 14.1 – from 30.7 in 1990 to 44.8 in 2015.

Human Development Index:

The ranking of India in the Human Development Index (HDI) is also not encouraging, either. Many would know, HDI is a composite index of life expectancy, education, and per capita income, which are used to rank countries in human development. As life expectancy also depends on the quality of healthcare, HDI has a significant bearing on this count, as well.

The ‘2016 Human Development Index Report (HDR)’ released by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) in March 2017 shows that India has slipped by one rank from 130 to 131, among 188 countries. According to UNDP, ‘in the past decades, there has been significant gains in human development levels almost in every country, but millions of people have not benefited from this progress. This report highlights who have been left behind and why?’

I shall dwell on the ‘Global Hunger Index Report’ below at an appropriate context.

Why is this comparison between different indices…and now?

The above question is indeed a very valid one. Nonetheless, it is important to do so. I am quoting these rankings to flag the sharp contrast in our mindset to rejoice the good rankings, and lampooning the adverse ones, citing one reason or the other.

It is obvious from the general euphoria witnessed by many on such good news – highlighted so well by the print, television and social media, with high decibel discussions by experts and politicians. There is nothing wrong in doing that, in any way. However, similar media discussions were not evident for taking effective corrective measures, soon, when ‘global burden of disease rankings’ or ‘Human Development Index Report (HDR)’ or the ‘Global Hunger Index’ rankings were published in September, March and October 2017, respectively.

Does it therefore mean that effectively addressing issues related to crumbling public healthcare infrastructure in the country attracts much lesser importance than ensuring ease of doing business in the country? Do both the politicians and the voters also consider so? Perhaps the answer is yes, as many would envisage in the largest democracy of the world.

What’s happening elsewhere?

In many developed and also the developing countries of the world, general public or voters’ expectations for having an affordable and robust public healthcare delivery system from the respective Governments seem to be high. Consequently, it also directs the focus of the politicians or lawmakers on the same. This scenario includes even the oldest democracy of the world – America. Such expectations on comprehensive healthcare covers the need for affordable drug prices too.

That voters are greatly concerned about healthcare in those countries is supported by many contemporary surveys. Just before the last year’s American Presidential election, Kaiser Health Tracking Poll: September 2016, substantiated this point. It said, besides considering personal characteristics of the candidates, the voters clearly articulated their priority on patient-friendly healthcare laws and affordable drug prices, as follows:

Over 66 percent of voters expressed that healthcare law is very important to their vote
77 percent said prescription drug costs are unreasonable, expressing widespread support for a variety of actions in order to keep healthcare costs down

Accordingly, The New York Times on September 17, 2017 reported: “The public is angry about the skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs. Surveys have shown that high drug prices rank near the top of consumers’ health care concerns, and politicians in both parties - including President Trump — have vowed to do something about it.”

I haven’t come across such widespread demand from the voters getting captured in any survey, before either any State Assembly or the Parliament elections in India. Hence, public healthcare continues to languish in the country, as various Governments come and go.

What happens post-election in the oldest democracy?

We have enough examples that post-election, the oldest democracy of the world tries to satisfy the well-articulated healthcare needs of the voters, on priority. To illustrate the point, let me help recapitulate what happened in this regard, immediately after the last two Presidential elections in America.

After swearing in on January 20, 2009, then American President Barack Obama, as expected by the voters and promised by him accordingly, enacted the Affordable Care Act (ACA), popularly known as ‘Obamacare’, almost within a year’s time – on March 23, 2010. Similarly, within a few months of swearing in as the American President, Donald Trump administration is mulling to address the voters demand and his electoral promise to make the prescription drugs more affordable.

Public demand and outcry for affordable healthcare, including affordable drugs have led to several serious consequential developments in the United States. Let me illustrate this point with another example of recent lawsuits filed against alleged price fixing of generic drugs – many of these are new, but a few started in the last few years.

Vigil on drug prices continues:

As high drug prices are a burning issue even in America, a lot many steps are being taken there on that issue – just as many other developed and developing countries are taking.

It is rather well known that even after enactment of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010, the Department of Justice of the country expanded probing into the allegation of price fixing by many generic drug manufacturers operating in America. One such illustration is October 31, 2017 public notice of the State Attorney General (AG) of Connecticut. It states that the AG is leading a coalition of 46-states in new, expanded complaint in Federal Generic Drug Antitrust Lawsuit. It further mentioned: States allege broad, industry-wide understanding among numerous drug manufacturers to restrain competition and raise prices on 15 generic drugs, where some senior executives have been sued.

Interestingly, in this notice the AG said, “The generic drug market was conceived as a way to help bring down the cost of prescription medications. For years, those savings have not been realized, and instead the prices of many generic drugs have skyrocketed.” He alleged that the defendant companies’ collusion was so pervasive that it essentially eliminated competition from the market for the identified 15 drugs in its entirety. ‘Ongoing investigation continues to uncover additional evidence, and we anticipate bringing more claims involving additional companies and drugs at the appropriate time,” the Attorney General further added.

By the way, the expanded complaint of the states reportedly also includes several large Indian companies, such Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Emcure, Glenmark, Sun Pharma, and Zydus Pharma. Curiously, the expanded complaint also names two individual defendants, one among them is the promoter, the chief executive officer and managing director of a large Indian pharma manufacturer.

Examples such as this vindicate, even if a robust public healthcare system is put in place, the regulators would still keep a careful vigil on drug prices.

Getting back to the key link between some indices:

Let me now get back to where I started from – the link between ‘ease of doing business’ and ‘becoming a healthy and wealthy’ nation, over a period of time. This would subsequently bring us to the link between healthy nation and the existence of a robust and functioning affordable public healthcare system in the country.

From that angle, I raised a key question. Why the general public, and specifically the voters in India aren’t making effective delivery of an affordable public healthcare as one of the top priority areas while voting for or against a political dispensation? The question assumes greater relevance when one sees it happening in many other countries, as discussed above. Is it, therefore, worth pondering whether this issue can be explained, at least to a great extent, by applying the well-known ‘Maslow’s theory of hierarchy of needs.’

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and hunger index:

As the literature says, ‘Maslow’s hierarchy of needs’ is a theory of motivation in psychology developed by Abraham Maslow in 1943. He believed people move through different stages of five needs that motivate our behavior. He called these needs physiological, safety, love and belonging (social), esteem, and self-actualization.

As we see, the first two basic needs are physiological and then safety. Maslow explains the ‘physiological needs’ as food, water, sleep, and basic biological functions. When these physiological needs are adequately met, our safety needs would usually dominate individual behavior.

Similarly, Maslow’s ‘safety needs’ in the modern era are generally expressed as the needs of job security, financial security, and health and well-being, among a few others. Thus, the need for healthcare falls under ‘safety needs’, following the most basic ‘physiological needs’.

As Food is one the first basic needs, India’s current ranking in the ‘Global Hunger Index (GHI)’, would suggest this primary need of having at least two square meals of nutritious food a day, has not been adequately met by a large population of Indians, not just yet.

India’s ranking in the Global Hunger Index (GHI):

The Global Hunger Index (GHI) has been defined as a multidimensional statistical tool used to describe the state of countries’ hunger situation. The GHI measures progress and failures in the global fight against hunger. It is now, reportedly, in its 12th year, ranking countries based on four key indicators – undernourishment, child mortality, child wasting and child stunting.

The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) report, titled ‘2017 global hunger index: The inequalities of hunger ’, indicates that India ranks below many of its neighboring countries, such as China (29th in rank), Nepal (72), Myanmar (77), Sri Lank (84) and Bangladesh (88), but ahead of Pakistan (106) and Afghanistan (107). Just for the sake of interest, North Korea ranks 93rd while Iraq is in 78th position.

The primary basic need of food and nutrition does not seem to have been fully met for a large Indian voter population, as yet. Many of them are still struggling and searching for appropriate means of earning a dignified livelihood. It includes support in agricultural production and the likes. Thus, many voters don’t feel yet, the second level of need that prompts a vocal demand for an affordable and robust public healthcare system in the country. The same situation continues, despite ‘out of pocket’ expenditure on healthcare being one of the highest in India, alongside the cost of drugs too.

Conclusion:

This brings us to the key question – When would the demand for having an affordable and robust public healthcare system in the country, assume priority for the general public in India, and the voters, in particular?

Sans Government’s sharp focus on public healthcare, including the cost of drugs, devices, and education, it will be challenging for a democracy of India’s size to make a decisive move, for a long term – from average to good – and then from good to great, even in the economic parameters.

Applying Maslow’s hierarchy of needs onto various health related global indices, it appears that the primary basic need of food and nutrition has not been fully met for a large Indian voter population, as yet. This possibly makes a large section of Indian voters to move into the second level of need, raising a widespread vocal demand for an affordable and robust public healthcare system in the country.

Rejoicing country’s advancement in the World Bank’s ranking on the ease of doing business by 30 points in a year has its own merits. However, in the same yardstick, doesn’t health care losing the priority focus of the nation also highlight the demerits of misplaced priority in a country’s governance process, and just because the voters are not quite demanding on this issue?

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: Business

The Hype of Digitalization in Pharma Marketing

Pharma Brand Building: Criticality of Enhancing End-To-End Customer Experience

‘Diversity And Inclusion’: A Missing Link For Indian Pharma

Key Drivers And Long-Term Impact of Pharma M&A in India

Organic and Inorganic Growth Strategy For Sustainable Business Excellence

Should ‘Pharma Marketing’ Be In The Line of Fire?

Healthcare in India And Hierarchy of Needs