Tag Archives: care

Innovative ‘Medicines Too Damn Expensive’: Health Risk For Billions of People

Posted on by
Reply

Most ‘medicines are too damn expensive. And a key part of the problem is the lack of consistent information about drug pricing. It’s not often that the Trump administration and the anti-poverty NGO Oxfam find themselves singing from the same hymn sheet.’ This was articulated in the article carrying a headline, ‘No One Knows The True Cost Of Medicines, And Blaming Other Countries Won’t Help,’ published by Forbes on March 03, 2019.

In the oldest democracy of the world, on the eve of the last Presidential election, Kaiser Health Tracking Poll, September 2016 captured the public anger on skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs, which they ranked near the top of consumers’ health care concerns. Accordingly, politicians in both parties, including the Presidential candidates, vowed to do something about it.

Ironically, even so close to General Election in the largest democracy of the world, no such data is available, nor it is one of the top priority election issues. Nevertheless, the discontentment of the general public in this area is palpable. The final push of election propaganda of any political party is now unlikely to include health care as one of the key focus areas for them. This is because, many seemingly trivial ones are expected to fetch more votes, as many believe.

In this area, I shall dwell on the ‘mystic’ area of jaw dropping, arbitrary drug pricing, especially for innovative lifesaving drugs – drawing examples from some recent research studies in this area.

High drug prices and associated health risks for billions of people:

New Oxfam research paper, titled: ‘Harmful Side Effects: How drug companies undermine global health,’ published on September 18, 2018, ferreted out some facts, which, in general terms, aren’t a big surprise for many. It highlighted the following:

  • Abbott, Johnson & Johnson, Merck and Pfizer – systematically hide their profits in overseas tax havens.
  • By charging very high prices for their products, they appear to deprive developing countries more than USD 100 million every year – money that is urgently needed to meet health needs of people in these countries.
  • In the UK, these four companies may be underpaying around £125m of tax each year.
  • These corporations also deploy massive lobbying operations to influence trade, tax and health policies in their favor and give their damaging behavior greater apparent legitimacy.
  • Tax dodging, high prices and political influencing by pharmaceutical companies exacerbate the yawning gap between rich and poor, between men and women, and between advanced economies and developing ones.

The impact of this situation is profound and is likely to further escalate, if left unchecked, the reason being self-regulation of pharma industry is far from desirable in this area.

As discussed in the article, titled ‘Why Rising Drug Prices May Be the Biggest Risk to Your Health,’ published in Healthline on July 18, 2018, left unchecked, the rising cost of prescription drugs could cripple healthcare, as well as raise health risks for millions of people. Although this specific article was penned in the American context, it is also relevant in India, especially for lifesaving patented drugs, for treating many serious ailments, such as cancer.

Is pharma pricing arbitrary?

The answer to this question seems to be no less than an emphatic ‘yes’. Vindicating this point, the above Forbes article says: ‘It’s a myth that the costs of medicines need to be high, to cover the research & development costs of pharmaceutical companies.’

Explaining it further, the paper underscored, ‘Prices in the pharma industry aren’t set based on a particular acceptable level of profit, or in relation to the cost of production. They’re established based on a calculation of the absolute maximum that enough people are willing to pay.’

The myth: ‘High R&D cost is the reason for high drug price’: 

Curiously, ample evidences indicate that this often-repeated argument of the drug companies’, is indeed a myth. To illustrate the point, I am quoting below just a few examples, as available from both independent and also the industry sources that would bust this myth:

  • Several research studies show that actual R&D cost to discover and develop a New Molecular Entity (NME) is much less than what the pharma and biotech industry claims. Again, in another article, titled ‘The R&D Factor: One of the Greatest Myths of the Industry,” published in this blog on March 25, 2013, I also quoted the erstwhile CEO of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) on this subject. He clearly enunciated in an interview with Reuters that: “US $1 billion price tag for R&D was an average figure that includes money spent on drugs that ultimately fail… If you stop failing so often, you massively reduce the cost of drug development… It’s entirely achievable.”
  • In addition, according to the BMJ report: ‘More than four fifths of all funds for basic research to discover new drugs and vaccines come from public sources,’ and not incurred by respective drug companies.
  • Interestingly, other research data reveals that ‘drug companies spend far more on marketing drugs – in some cases twice as much – than on developing them.’ This was published by the BBC New with details, in an article, titled ‘Pharmaceutical industry gets high on fat profits.’

World Health Organization (WHO) recommends transparency in drug pricing:

The report of the United Nations Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on ‘Access to Medicines’ released on September 14, 2016 emphasized the need of transparency in this area of the pharma sector. It recommended, governments should require manufacturers and distributors to disclose to drug regulatory and procurement authorities information pertaining to:

  • The costs of R&D, production, marketing and distribution of health technology being procured or given marketing approval to each expense category separated; and
  • Any public funding received in the development of any health technology, including tax credits, subsidies and grants.

But the bottom-line is, not much, if any, progress has been made by any UN member countries participating in this study. The overall situation today still remains as it has always been.

Conclusion:

The Oxfam report, as mentioned above, captures how arbitrarily fixed exorbitant drug pricing, creates a profound adverse impact on the lives of billions of people in developing and underdeveloped countries. Let me quote here only one such example from this report corroborating this point. It underlined that the breast cancer drug trastuzumab, costing around USD 38,000 for a 12-month course, is almost five times the average income for a South African household. The situation in India for such drugs, I reckon, is no quite different.

To make drug pricing transparent for all, the paper recommends, “attacking that system of secrecy around R&D costs is key.” Pharma players have erected a wall around them, as it were, by giving reasons, such as, ‘commercial secret, commercial information, no we can’t find out about this’…if you question intellectual property, it’s like you’re questioning God.” The report adds.

In India, the near-term solution for greater access to new and innovative lifesaving drugs to patients, is to implement a transparent patented drug pricing policy mechanism in the country. This is clearly enshrined in the current national pharma policy document, but has not seen the light of the day, just yet.

In the battle against disease, life-threatening ailments are getting increasingly more complex to treat, warranting newer and innovative medicines. But these ‘drugs are too damn expensive’.

In the midst of this complicated scenario, billions of people across the world are getting a sense of being trapped between ‘the devil and the deep blue sea.’Occasional price tweaking of such drugs by the regulator are no more than ‘palliative’ measures. Whereas, a long-term solution to this important issue by the policy makers are now absolutely necessary for public health interest, especially in a country like India.

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: Time For A Disruptive Change with A New Breed of Marketers

Posted on by
Reply

In Today’s fast-changing world, as I indicated in several of my previous articles, more and more people first try to understand the causative factors of their ailments, and options available for effective remedial measures. They strive to get such information, either from the cyberspace or by word of mouth from well informed individuals or other sources. This process starts before treatment, and continues, at times, even after remission of the disease.

Even in the developed countries, a scope exists for self-medication for common ailments with OTC drugs, duly approved by respective country’s drug regulators. A point to ponder, most of these were ‘only prescription’ medicines before going off-patent, and after enjoying 20 years of exclusivity with pricing freedom. During their patent life, self-treatment was illegal with any of these molecules, if not dangerous. The same tradition continues today.

The bottom-line is, many patients are now trying to understand their diseases from sources other than the physician. Good or bad, the reality is, such patients generally prefer to visit a doctor as and when they deem it necessary. While visiting a clinic, they already have, not just some idea of the ailment, but also in what way they would prefer to get themselves treated and approximate cost of each. One should not presume, either, that majority of them are unaware of the risks involved with this approach.

Pharma marketers today can’t just wish away this emerging trend of patients and patient groups getting increasingly more informed. Trying to stop this trend will be a Herculean task, similar to swimming against a very strong current. Managing this situation in a win-win way is now a key task of a pharma marketer. In this article, dwelling on this trend, I shall focus on the need for a disruptive change in pharma marketing and the new breed of drug marketers.

Calls for a fundamental shift in pharma ‘marketing focus’:

Achieving this objective warrants a fundamental, if not a disruptive shift, in the ‘marketing focus’ of pharma companies – from traditional ‘product management’ to modern ‘brand management.’

With patented ‘me-too’ drugs, including ‘Fixed Dose Combinations (FDCs)’, as well as generics, now dominating the market, some sort of ‘commoditization’ of drugs are taking place in the pharma industry, whether one likes it or not.

No significant differential advantages oruniqueness exist between such products manufactured by different drug companies. Consequently, doctors or patients have enough choices to prescribe or buy, drugs with comparable efficacy, safety, quality standards and matching price range, from different pharma players.

Shift from product marketing to brand marketing:

One may possibly ask aren’t both quite the same? Is there any meaningful difference between these two? Thus, taking a pause, let us try to understand what’s the difference between these two.

Yes, for many there is not much difference between these two, especially in the pharma industry. Hence, many drug companies name this function as ‘product management’, while others call it ‘brand management’. In fact, these two are often used as interchangeable terminologies in the drug industry. Nonetheless, this understanding is far from being correct.

The key focus in ‘pharma product marketing’ is on the drug itself – its intrinsic value offerings to patients in terms of efficacy, safety, quality and often the cost. Thus, ‘product marketing’ approach may work for breakthrough drugs, but not for ‘me-too’ patented drugs or generic ones to achieve the desired goals of the respective companies, consistently.

Whereas, pharma ‘brand marketing’ in its true form, creates much more value than pharma ‘product marketing.’ The former dovetails intrinsic values of the drug with a set of strong feelings and emotions around the brand, purely based on what patients or consumers would want to experience from it. This process makes even a me-too brand stand out, creating a strong personality around it and differentiating itself head and shoulder above competitors. Importantly, the bedrock of conceptualizing these powerful feelings and emotions, must necessarily be robust, relevant and fresh research data. No doubt, the task is a challenging one– and not every marketer’s cup of tea.

Why building personality for pharma brands and services is necessary?

If we look around the healthcare industry, we shall be able to realize the importance of building personality for a medicine, especially generic drugs with a brand name, in the Indian context.

For example, many hospitals offer similar medical treatment facilities, follow similar treatment guidelines and their cost may also not be very different. But why different people prefer different ones among these, and all hospitals don’t get a similar number of patients? Same thing happens during the patients’ selection of doctors from many, having similar qualification, experience and expertise.

This happens mainly due to the attachment of a persona around each that creates a particular feeling and emotion among patients while choosing one of them. The process and reasons of creation of a persona may be different, but it certainly differentiates one from the other for the consumer. The same thing happens with virtually undifferentiated ‘me-too’ patented drugs or generic medicines.

Time to create a ‘strong pull’ for a drug, instead of ‘push’ by any means:

To create a ‘strong pull’ successfully, specifically for ‘me-too’ patented molecule or generic drugs, there is an urgent need for a fundamental change in the organization’s marketing approach – a shift in focus from ‘product marketing’ to ‘brand marketing’.

Otherwise, current pharma marketing practices for creating a ‘strong push’ for drugs that often involve alleged serious malpractices’ will continue. But continuation of this approach is not sustainable any longer, for scores of reasons.

The benefits of pharma ‘brand marketing’ in bullet points:

To summarize the key benefits of ‘brand marketing’ in pharma, the following points come at the top of mind:

  • ‘Brand marketing’ of drugs helps escaping avoidable and unsustainable heavy expenditure to create a ‘strong product push,’ often resorting to contentious marketing practices.
  • Proper ‘brand marketing’ of drugs needs high quality cerebral and multi-talented marketing teams, rather than the power of ‘deep pocket’ to buy prescriptions. This creates a snowballing effect of cutting edge talent development within the organization, along with a culture of leading by examples, for a sustainable future success.
  • ‘Brand marketing’ is a better, if not the best way to make a drug most preferred choice in a crowd of similar branded generics or ‘me-too’ patented drugs.
  • Paying doctors for prescribing a drug does not help developing loyal customers, but creating feelings and emotions for a brand among them, helps foster brand allegiance.
  • Creative ‘brand marketing’ of drugs will appreciably boost the image of the organization, as well, but ‘pharma product’ marketing in its present form, will not.

Pharma ‘brand marketing’ and ‘patient-centricity’ to work in tandem:

My article, ‘Increasing Consumerism: A Prime Mover For Change in Healthcare’, published in this blog on June 11, 2018, deliberated an important point. It was:

If the pharma strategic marketing process is really effective in every way, why is healthcare consumerism increasing across the world, including India?

The focal point of rising consumerism in the pharma industry is unsatisfied, if not anguished or angry patients and patient groups – in other words consumers. There could be various different reasons for the same. But the core point is, contentious marketing practices that pharma players generally follow, is self-serving in nature. These are not patient-centric, and mostly devoid of efforts to create feelings or emotions for the product, among both prescribers and other consumers.

The pharma marketers to keep pace with changing environmental demands:

As I discussed several times in the past, pharma marketers are often found wanting to meet the changing demands of the business environment. This is important, as the general pharma practices of influencing the prescribing decision of the doctors are facing a strong headwind of increasing consumerism, India included. This is slowly but surely gaining momentum. For example, patients in India are realizing:

  • That a vast majority of people pay ‘out of pocket’, almost the total cost of health care, without having even a participatory role in their treatment choice, including drugs.
  • That they no longer should remain unassertive consumers, just as what happens in other industries when a consumer buys a product or service.
  • That they need to involve themselves more and be assertive when a decision about their health is taken by doctors, hospitals, realizing that pharma and medical device companies often ‘unfairly’ influence doctors’ prescribing decisions.

The role and requisite talent required for pharma marketers have changed:

Keeping aside ‘one size fits all’ type of strategy, even if I look at so called ‘targeted marketing’ in pharma, it appears somewhat baffling. It is somewhat like, ‘empty your machine gun magazine at the target with a hope to win over competition.’ Whereas, today’s environment requires making healthcare product marketing, including drugs and services, more personal, and in some cases even individual, like latest cancer therapy. The wherewithal for technological support to move towards this direction is also available. State of the art marketing and product research tools and analytics should be put to use to facilitate this process.

Increasing usage of digital marketing, in an integrated or holistic way, is going to make traditional pharma marketing less and less productive, whether we like it or not. To maintain a sharp competitive edge in this new ball game, on an ongoing basis, pharma marketers will need to keep raising the bar.

Consequently, the role and requisite talent required for pharma marketers have also changed. The new generation of drug marketers will not just be creative, but their creativity will be guided by a huge pool of credible research-based data, avoiding gut-feel. All guesses in this area must pass the acid test of validation by what the research data reveals. Moreover, pharma marketers will need to possess, at least the working knowledge of various digital platforms and possible usages for each of these.

Conclusion:

There is an urgent need to realize that drug marketing is now at the crossroads, pharma players will have a choice, either to follow the same beaten path or gradually make a course correction to keep pace with changing environmental demands. If a company decides to choose the second one, the role of pharma marketers and the talent required for doing the job effectively, will be significantly different from what it is today.Maintaining the status quo in this area, carries an inherent risk for the future success of pharma companies.

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.

 

Does ‘Patient-Centricity’ Now Sound Like A Cliché?

Posted on by
Reply

Today, many pharma companies claim ‘patient-centricity’ as one of their primary focus areas in business. Many industry experts, as well, have been advocating so, over a period of time. A number of research studies, published during the last several years, also recommended that ‘patient centricity’ should be the key focus area for long-term sustainability of any pharma business, across the world, including India. In the fast unfolding scenario of date, this is absolutely essential to keep pace with the changing needs and aspirations of a new generation of well-informed patients.

Currently, one can easily spot inclusion ‘patient-centricity’ even in the corporate vision and mission statements of many drug companies, especially those with global footprints. But the question arises, how efficient is its implementation in the field?

In this article, I shall try to fathom whether patients are in sync with pharma’s claim of moving towards this goal, or the term ‘patient centricity’ just sounds like a cliché, at least, as of now. Let me start by giving a brief perspective of the subject to illustrate the point, why it represents a fundamental shift in the healthcare space.

‘Patient-centricity’ – a fundamental shift in healthcare space:

As I discussed in my article, titled ‘Increasing Consumerism: A Prime Mover For Change in Healthcare’: ‘Patients’ longing for better participative treatment experience at an affordable cost, has started gathering momentum as a major disrupting force in the healthcare space of India, as well.

This is a fundamental shift in the healthcare space, especially in terms of patients’ behavior, needs, aspirations and expectations while charting across any end-to-end treatment process. This change is taking place over the last couple of decades, pushing many pharma players to adopt a ‘patient-centric’ approach for greater sustainability in the business.

‘Patient-centricity’ has started occupying the center stage in the successful pharma business, as patients are becoming more and more informative. The reasons for this change are many. I have already discussed many of these, along with suggestions on corrective measures, in my various articles, published in this blog on the subject.

What’s happening on the ground?

Drug manufacturers’ various strategic communications aimed at stakeholders, signal that the ball has started rolling. According to a report, well-known pharma majors, such as Novartis, GSK, Janssen Pharmaceutical, UCB, LEO Pharma, among others, are actively participating in conversation on ‘patient-centricity.’ Apace with, a number of research studies also point towards a clear dichotomy, and a glaring disparity between drug companies’ claims and people’s perception of ‘patient-centricity’ in real life. Let me first touch upon the glaring dichotomy in this area.

A glaring dichotomy exists:

That more organizations are becoming more ‘patient-centric’, will get captured by the increasing trust of patients – both on the individual companies and also the pharma industry, in general. But today, what we witness is a clear dichotomy between the claims of many pharma companies of being ‘patient-centric’ and the declining patients’ trust, along with dented reputation and image of the industry, in general.

Declining public trust towards pharma industry is also evident from increasing consumerism in the healthcare space, besides stringent policy and price regulatory measures being taken by various governments, across the world. It also significantly increases their cost of advocacy with governments, through their own trade associations. Either patients pay for such avoidable costs indirectly, by paying higher drug price, or the pharma players absorb its impact with reduced margin, which is also avoidable.

This gets reinforced by another measure of disparity. It also points to the widening gap between drug companies’ claim on becoming ‘patient-centric’ – together with their employee perceptions on the same, and the reality as experienced by patients. Let me illustrate this point below by quoting from another recent research study.

Measuring disparity between the claim and reality:

Interestingly, the August 2018 annual benchmarking survey carried out by the Aurora Project, also finds a disparity in perception and reality related to the much often-used terminology – ‘patient-centricity’. Aurora Project is a non-profit group, founded by eyeforpharma and Excellerate. It is made up of more than 200 health sector leaders from around the world, with an objective ‘to move ‘patient-centricity’ from words to actions and outcomes’.

The study was conducted between July and November 2018. It covered 1,282 respondents, which include patients, HCPs and employees from biopharmaceutical and medical device companies. Expert perspectives were obtained from senior managers working with 10 of the world’s leading pharma companies, and views from specialists in behavior change and organizational psychology.

The respondents were asked to score the degree of ‘patient-centricity’ in pharma across 10 metrics, and patients consistently rated companies lower than industry employees. Some of the important findings that came out clearly while measuring the disparity between pharma’s claim and the reality, are as follows:

  • In total, 72 percent of employees agreed with the statement “my company communicates with care and compassion, transparent and unbiased information on diseases, treatment options and available resources”.

- Whereas only 32 percent of patients agreed with the equivalent statement.

  • More than half (53 percent) of the employee participants said they were “actively looking for what to do and how to teach” patient centricity.

- Whereas only 22 percent said they knew “exactly what to do

- And 16 percent said they “didn’t know what to do or how to teach it”.

  • Only 36 percent of the patients surveyed indicate that they have “quite a bit” or “a lot” of trust in the pharmaceutical industry overall.

The survey brought to the fore, while people believe in the importance of pharma delivering on its ‘patient-centered’ mission, most are not confident in pharma’s ability to deliver.

Most companies focus sharper on meeting short-term goals than ‘patient-centricity’:

That most companies focus sharper on achieving short term goals than ‘Patient-centricity’, as also captured unambiguously in the above survey, as it noted:

  • 90 percent of survey participants employed by biopharmaceutical and medical device companies agree that a long-term focus is key to the success of patient- centric efforts. However, the need for a long-term view is sometimes at odds with business realities, and 53 percent agree that their companies are mostly concerned about results this quarter (9 percent) or this year (44 percent).

Thus, there is a clear need for not just of ‘patient-centricity’, but also an appetite for it among those best placed to make it happen. Therefore, the question to ponder for pharma companies is: How best to be ‘patient-centric’? While trying to ferret out a robust answer to this question, many domain experts suggest that ‘patient centricity’ demands a fundamental shift in the cultural mindset of the organization.

Demands a fundamental shift in corporate cultural mindset:

As I pointed out in several of my articles in the past, the need for creating an appropriate ‘patient-centric’ corporate cultural mindset is to reverse the organizational pyramid. This means transforming the business from being product focused to patient focused.

That ‘patient-centricity’ demands a shift in the corporate cultural mindset within the pharmaceutical industry, was also emphasized in the article published in the Journal of Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science (TIRS) onMarch 28, 2017, titled ‘Patient Centricity and Pharmaceutical Companies: Is It Feasible?’

Elaborating this point further, the paper said that at the highest level, it involves listening to and partnering with the patient, and understanding the patient perspective, rather than simply inserting patient views into the established process. Aided by the top management, the answers to the following questions on ‘patient-centricity’ should be crystal clear to all employees:

  • Why are we doing this?
  • How should we do it?
  • What are the results we aim to achieve?

Conclusion:

Quoting the December 2012 NHS document, the essence of ‘patient-centricity’ may be expressed as – ‘making “no decision about me, without me” a reality, all along the patient pathway: in primary care, before a diagnosis, at referral and after a diagnosis.’ This is applicable to all in the healthcare space, equally, including the pharma industry. There doesn’t seem to be any alternative to it, either. Which is why, ‘patient-centricity’ is emerging as a ‘take it or perish’ type of a situation for all pharma players. It may not happen immediately, but eventually it would certainly form the bedrock of pharmaceutical business.

Probably due to this reason, ‘patient-centricity’ has become a new a new buzz word to demonstrate how a pharma player is keeping pace with time. Consequently, more and more companies are joining this chorus of informing the stakeholders that ‘I am game’. Be that as it may, the core concept of ‘patient centricity’ is still not yet getting properly translated into better patient outcomes, through actionable strategies on the ground.

There are several studies on the measurement of ‘patient centricity’. The Aurora Project, as discussed above, is one such. It clearly brings out that there is still a significant gap between words and actions of many drug companies on ‘patient-centricity’. Consequently, a large number of patients are still unable to reap the consequential benefits of ‘patient centricity’, the way it is publicized by several companies. Despite this, the terminology continues to be overused, sans proper application of mind to translate the pharma’s good intent into 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.

‘Data-giri’: Critical For A Rewarding New Product Launch

Posted on by
Reply

Success in new product launches is a fundamental requirement to excel in pharma business – regardless of whether the drug is innovative or a generic one. For a novel, innovative molecule, associated risks are much higher, as it carries a huge amount of associated R&D expenditure.

The launch plan for a generic formulation or even a ‘me-too’ patented variety, can broadly replicate the first in the class molecule. Whereas, for any breakthrough innovative medicine – it’s a whole new ball game. There are virtually no footsteps to follow. Nonetheless, there is one thing common in both – a robust launch plan is pivotal to success, across the board.

In this regard, the March 2014 article titled, ‘The secret of successful drug launches’, of McKinsey & Company captures an interesting scenario: “About two-thirds of drug launches don’t meet expectations. Improving that record requires pharmaceutical companies to recognize the world has changed and adjust their marketing accordingly.”

On the same issue, Bain & Company also drew a similar outline with its article titled, ‘How to Make Your Drug Launch a Success,’ published about three and half years later – on September 06, 2017. It reported: “Our research shows that nearly 50 percent of launches over the past eight years have under-performed analyst expectations, and more than 25 percent have failed to reach even 50 percent of external revenue forecasts.”

The bottom-line, therefore, is – even if the success rate of new product launches has marginally improved, for various reasons, there still isn’t much to write home about it. In this article, I shall deliberate what type of approaches, when used with powerful cerebral inputs, could possibly improve this rate – significantly and sooner. Could it be with ‘Data-giri’?

What is ‘Data-giri’?

A good question. ‘Data-giri’ is quite an unheard-of terminology, probably was first used by the Chairman of Reliance Industries – Mr. Mukesh D. Ambani, on September 02, 2016. This happened when he announced the forthcoming launch of his mobile network ‘Jio’. At that time, light-heartedly he said:”We Indians have come to appreciate and applaud ‘Gandhigiri’. Now, we can all do ‘Data- giri’, which is an opportunity for every Indian to do unlimited good things, with unlimited data.”

As is known to many, the word ‘Gandhigiri’ is generally used in India to express the power in the tenets of Gandhism. Similarly, the expression ‘Data-giri’ may symbolize the power that the effective use of the right kind and quality of ‘data’ could provide. Unleashing the potential of relevant and requisite data for value creation, would assume critical importance, even in drug launches, more than ever before.

‘Data-giri’ in drug launches:

Right kind and volume of relevant ‘Data’ is fast becoming an important marketing weaponry. Its variety and quality of usage in business, would ultimately differentiate between success and failure.

Today, data usage in pharma marketing can no longer be restricted to just retail and prescription audits, supported at times by a few custom-made marketing research initiatives. The data that I am talking about here, covers mostly real-life and ongoing data in many areas, such as customer behavior, their practices, thinking pattern, aspirations, together with associated changes in trend for each – captured right from the early stages. The cluster of customers includes doctors, patients, healthcare providers and all other stakeholders.

To unleash the hidden power of data for gaining a productive space for brands in customers’ mind, building an arsenal of data for engagement in pharma marketing warfare, is emerging as a new normal for pharma players.

Accordingly, the bedrock of any strategic plan is shifting from – key decisions based mostly on gut feelings, to all such decisions standing on pillars of a large pool of well-analyzed data. From a new product-launch perspective, the basic data requirements would encompass some critical areas, which need to be focused on. I would illustrate this point with a few examples, as below.

Basic data requirements for a new product launch:

One such example in the above area, comes from United BioSource LLC (UBC) – a leading provider of pharmaceutical support service. It highlights 4 real-time basic data insights as critical to a successful drug launch, which I summarize as follows:

  • What market share I want to achieve?
  • Where are my potential high-volume prescribers?
  • What are the characteristics of patients who will receive my drugs?
  • Which physician specialties would prescribe my drug – immediate, medium and long term?

Successful companies do three things right:

Another example on what successful companies do right comes from the above research report of Bain & Company. It found that companies with successful launches do the following three things right:

  • They differentiate their drug through messaging, post-launch data and services.
  • They create broad customer advocacy via a superior customer experience.
  • They organize their launch as a micro-battle and ensure continuous ‘frontline feedback’.

The paper included a few other factors as, comprehensive market research, key opinion leader advocacy and competitive resourcing. The authors observed that pharma executives grossly underestimate several key success ingredients, including customer advocacy and organizing each launch as a micro-battle, with a real-time dual-feedback mechanism involving all concerned, to facilitate prompt intervention whenever required.

From both the above examples, none can possibly refute that without a meticulously created ‘data arsenal’, these exercises are feasible, in any way, for a rewarding new product launch outcome.

Data is fundamental to create a Unique Customer Experience (UCE):

As I wrote in my previous article, the expertise in creating a Unique Customer Experience (UCE) or aUnique Patient Experience (UPE) for a brand, would eventually separate men from the boys in the game of gaining product ‘market share’. Crafty use of data is fundamental for moving towards this direction.

One of the crucial requirements for UCE or UPE is taking a significant share of mind of consumers. This is possible by designing data-based cutting-edge differential advantages of the brand over others. In pharma marketing battleground, this could be done either – with only tangible brand features, or mostly with intangible benefits and perceptions, or an astute mix of both.

Data – essential to measure deviation against the strategic plan:

During any new product launch-phase, it is essential to capture and accurately measure all actual deviations against plan, taking place on the ground at each pre-defined milestone. The exact reasons for each need to be ferreted – both below or above expectations, for immediate necessary actions. This is important, as various studies indicate that the performance trend of a new product in the first six months from its launch, is a good indicator of its future performance.

All types of customer engagements, including selection of communication channels and platforms, should be ongoing research data-based. I emphasized this point in my previous article, as well. It was reiterated that ‘omnichannel content strategy’ for improving patient engagement and providing UPE, across all touchpoints in the diagnosis and treatment process, should be created over the bedrock of high-quality data.

Time for a switch from SOV to SOC:

Creating greater ‘Share of Voice (SOV)’ for a new brand, especially during its launch phase, would no longer work in pharma. This approach is based on the key premise of ‘Jo dikhta hai wo bikta hai’. This often-used Hindi phrase when translated into simple English, may be expressed as: ‘That which is seen is sold.’

In the pharma context SOV may be explained, as I understand: The percentage of total sales promotion and marketing activities for a brand within the sum total of the same in the represented therapy area. It is usually determined by measuring some key parameters, such as frequency and reach of doctors-call, or customer-contact, or even its rank in ‘top of mind brand recall.’

Greater SOV can make marketeers believe that enough is being done by the company to benefit potential brand consumers, which would help reaping a rich harvest. It may also reflect how busy they are with the execution of all planned-activities. On the other hand, consumer-experience may not be quite in sync with the intent and belief of the marketeers. They may not find enough value in the conventional brand marketing process. This is likely to happen much more in the future, as most consumers will want to experience a unique feeling of being cared enough by the company, while moving through all the touch points of the treatment process.

This trend calls for a major shift in pharma marketeers’ approach – from creating a greater SOV to offering greater SOC (Share of Care). I highlighted the importance of providing ‘care’ through several of my articles in the past, published in this blog. One such is titled “Creating A ‘Virtuous Cycle’ Through Patient Reach and Care”, published on April 09, 2018.

Conclusion:

The critical switch from SOV to SOC involves imaginative application of complex data of high quality.

A well-thought-out plan to fetch out critical answers aiming to provide UCE or UPE, will involve in-depth analysis of voluminous data of high quality, through modern-day analytics. From this perspective, fast learning of the art of ‘Data-giri’ is becoming a critical requirement for new product launch success in pharma, as we move on.

By: Tapan J. Ray   

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

Access To Comprehensive Healthcare Merits Multipronged Approach

Posted on by
Reply

Since the turn of the new millennium, several high profile and flagship health schemes are being announced in India by the Union successive governments. Some of the important ones will include the National Health Mission, Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY) - a Health Insurance Scheme for the Below Poverty Line families and now Ayushman Bharat – National Health Protection Mission - expected to cover over 100 million poor and vulnerable families providing coverage up to 500,000 rupees per family per year for hospitalization related to secondary and tertiary care.

Besides, the Mental Health Care Act 2017 has been operational since last year. It was passed by the Rajya Sabha in August 2016, and the Lok Sabha on March 2017. The right to mental health care is the core of the Act.

Each of these announcements look good on paper and was accompanied with lofty government promises. Riding on the waves of hypes thus created, public expectations increased commensurately for getting easy access to a comprehensive and affordable health care, which now includes ‘Mental Health’ as well. Unfortunately, the Gordian knot in Indian public healthcare space continued to exist. As various reports  indicate, for example, one that appeared on November 27, 2018, – even Ayushman Bharat is apparently moving towards the same detection driven by some critical basic issues.

Consequently, scores of people still do not have adequate and affordable access to basic health care, including essential drugs – clamping price control notwithstanding. The government knows it well, as it increases vigil on drug pricing. Pharma industry also feels its scorching heat. Overall storyline remains mostly unchanged. The vicious cycle continues.

In this article, I shall dwell on a system-approach to delivering comprehensive public health care. The key objective is trying to figure out what is the core problem that most of these schemes are either not addressing or doing it with a ‘band-aid’ approach. One of the key requirements for improving access to health care significantly, I reckon, is a clear understanding on the characterizations of the critical stages of healthcare access and their dimensions, from the patients’ perspective.

However, before doing so, let me glance upon some health care related current and important facts, as uploaded in the government’s National Health Profile 2018.  

National Health Profile 2018:

As available in the National Health Profile (NHP) of India – 2018, following are some of the important facts, which are worth noting:

  • In the current budget year, public (government) spending on health is just 1.3 per cent of the GDP against the global average for the same at 6 percent.
  • Just one doctor serves a population of 11,000 people, which is way below W.H.O recommended a doctor to population ratio of 1:1,000. The scenario is even worse in many states, such asBihar with 1: 28,391, Uttar Pradesh records 1:19,962, Jharkhand with 1:18,518, Madhya Pradesh shows 1:16,996 and Chhattisgarh at 1:15,916.
  • Per capita public expenditure by the government on health, stands at Rs 1,112 that comes to Rs 3 per day. This puts India below other low-income nations like the Maldives (9.4), Bhutan (2.5), Sri Lanka (1.6) and Nepal (1.1).

These numbers provide just a flavor of the Indian healthcare space, as it stands today. Some may of course talk about legacy factor, but to move ahead more important for all is what is happening today in this regard. Yes, one more health mission, as mentioned above, has been launched on September 25, 2018 with similar hype as the past ones, if not more. Only the future will tell us what changed it brings to the ground. That said, I am not very upbeat about it either, as providing a comprehensive health care access has always been multi-factorial and will remain so. Let me now dwell on why I am saying so.

Understanding health care access:

The 2013 research paper on “Improving Healthcare Access in India” by erstwhile IMS Consulting group (now IQVIA), said that ‘health care access characterizes 3 stages,’ which from the patient’s perspective has 4 key dimensions. In the Indian context, these three stages are:

  • Accessing care: Physical reach and location
  • Receiving care: Availability/capacity, Quality/functionality
  • Paying for care: Affordability

Accordingly, healthcare access is a function of 4 key aspects:

  • Physical reaches to health care facility
  • Availability of doctors and medicines in those places
  • Quality of care provided by these centers
  • Affordability of treatment, if available there

Access to healthcare is slowly improving, but far from being enough:

All the above schemes of the government are primarily focused on ‘paying for care’ stage and ‘affordability’ of treatment, including drugs. To a limited extent it makes sense as the above study vindicates that ‘availability’ and ‘affordability’ have good impact on ‘access to health care’.

Since the inception of NHM, this approach, no doubt, has made some improvement in the overall access to health care in the country, as many studies indicate. The IMS Consulting study also observes that compared to 2004, more patients received free medicines in outpatient care in 2013 – over 50 percent of patients going to Government hospitals say that they get free medicines there. However, the outcomes of the same across the Indian states vary quite a lot.

Inadequate healthcare infrastructure and physical reach in rural areas:

Having noted that, grossly inadequate availability of public health care infrastructure – or when available physical access to many of those from remote villages, coupled with lack of availability of required doctors, paramedics, nurses and medicines in those dispensaries – often become major issues. Moreover, their capacity to providing quality care, besides longer waiting time, often pushes many – either to remain virtually untreated or to go to private care centers costing much more.

The study finds that such movement of people from public to private facilities leads to higher health care costs. Consequently, high usage of private channels drives up the out of pocket (oop) cost of treatment. Some of the details are as follows:

  • 74 percent of patients sought private consultation
  • 85 percent of ‘oop’ spending on health care was in the private sector
  • 81percent of patients incurred ‘oop’ expenditure for medicines

Curiously, 35 percent of patients in the study rated public health facilities as – good. Whereas an overwhelming 81 percent said so for private facilities. Nevertheless, associated high ‘oop’ expenditure for the same often becomes an economic burden. The large number of patients with chronic ailments, are the major sufferers.

Application of mobile-health could help improve access:

On improving access to health care in India, an interesting ‘Review Article’ titled, “Applications of m-Health and e-Health in Public Health Sector: The Challenges and Opportunities”, appeared in the International Journal of Medicine and Public Health, April-June, 2018 issue, makes some thought-provoking observations.

It says, while the use of mobile phone (MPs) has become commonplace in many industry sectors, such as banking, railways, airlines – the public health sector has been somewhat slow in adopting MP technologies into routine operations. Its innovative use can benefit patients and providers alike by enhancing access to health care.Smartphones’ usefulness in the treatment of chronic diseases – for example, monitoring of blood pressure, blood sugar, body weight, electro- cardiograph (ECG), has already been established.

The paper also suggests, mobile health (m-H) is more effective when tailored to specific social, ethnic, demographic group using colloquial language. If implemented craftily and systematically, m-H can revolutionize the scenario of the health care delivery system, in many ways. Optimal doctor-patient engagement policy for m-H needs to be formulated, outlining a legal framework and with multi-stakeholder collaboration.

Mental health still largely ignored:

Another important aspect of comprehensive health care is ‘Mental Health’, as more than 60 million Indians suffer from mental disorders, suicides being one of the major killers in India (Source: W.H.O, IndiaSpend). However, it is disturbing to note that awareness and access to mental health treatment, especially in the hinterland of the country, continue to remain ignored. Increasing incidences of farmers’ suicides, for example, notwithstanding.

This was further elaborated by the IndiaSpend report of January 30, 2018, which underscored:“Allocation to the National Program for Mental Health has been stagnant for the past three years. At Rs 350 million, the program received 0.07 percent of India’s 2017-18 health budget.This is despite the fact that an estimated 10-20 million Indians (1-2% of the population) suffer from severe mental disorders such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, and nearly 50 million (5 percent of the population) – almost equal to the population of South Africa–suffer from common mental disorders such as depression and anxiety.”

The report further highlights that, notwithstanding 15 suicides every hour and 133,623 suicides in 2015, India is short of 66,200 psychiatrists and 269,750 psychiatric nurses. It is also noteworthy, while a frugal sum of 0.06 percent of India’s health budget is for mental health care, the same for even Bangladesh stands at 0.44 percent (Source: W.H.O, IndiaSpend).

Conclusion:

From the above perspective, I reckon, although access to health care in India, except ‘mental health care’, is improving at a modest pace, it doesn’t seem to be anywhere near adequate, as on date. A holistic approach for a comprehensive health care access to all, through the public health system, seems to be the need of the hour.

That said, currently India is not meeting the minimum W.H.O recommendations for healthcare workforce and also in bed density. A large section of the population continues to lack affordable access to quality health care. Moreover, the importance of mental health is still unknown to many in the country.

Thus, in tandem with addressing all the three stages and four key dimensions of comprehensive health care access, it is imperative to leverage new technology-based       e-healthcare and digital devices like m-Health. Together, these will help provide and facilitate not just quality care to patients, but also complement the healthcare infrastructure, including doctors and paramedics – making quality and affordable health care accessible to all.

As I said in my article, titled ‘Mental Health Problem: A Growing Concern in The Healthcare Space of India, the ‘Mental Health Care Bill’, which is now an Act, redefines mental illness to better understand various conditions that are persistent among the Indian population.This is a good development, as it aims at protecting the rights of persons with mental illness and promote access to mental health care. Since, the current ground reality in this area is a cause of great concern, when will it be effectively implemented for all, is the all-important question.

It is imperative for all concerned to understand that improving access to comprehensive health care is multi-factorial issue. Therefore, it needs nothing less than a well-thought out multi-pronged approach for an effective solution.

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.

Should Pharma-Doctor Communication Be Also Gender-Specific?

Posted on by
Reply

Regardless of situations, while selecting a suitable doctor for patients, or for that matter, pharma companies engage with them for commercial reasons, their gender doesn’t matter much to many.

What one generally looks for is, whether they are General Practitioners (GPs), General Surgeons (GSs) or Specialists in various disease areas, such as cardiac, metabolic, bones and joints, cancer and so on. This has been happening, despite several research studies pointing out a number of important gender-based behavioral differences between most male and female doctors, often leading to a significant difference in patient outcomes.

Before proceeding further, let me admit up front that there may be some exceptions to this general scenario. For example, certain female patients may prefer being examined by the female doctors only. Similarly, a few drug companies may be tailoring the content and the process of their communication based on the target doctors’ age.

In this article, I shall try to focus on this area based on a number of important research findings. The objective being whether medical communications of pharma players should also factor-in the gender-specific nuances among male and female doctors. This is because, such differences impact clinical outcomes and happens irrespective of whether they are GPs or specialists. Let me kick-start the discussion with the following question:

“Does gender matter when choosing a doctor?”

This interesting point was raised in an article, titled “Should You Choose a Female Doctor?”, appeared in ‘The New York Times (NYT)’ on August 14, 2018. Let me put across the essence of it, quoting from some large research findings.

The August 21, 2018 study, titled “Patient–physician gender concordance and increased mortality among female heart attack patients,” published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS). This study covered more than 580,000 heart patients admitted to emergency rooms in Florida between 1991 and 2010. After a thorough scrutiny, the researchers noted that:

  • The mortality rates for both women and men were lower when the treating physician was female.

Consequently, it appears, gender does matter, while choosing a doctor for better treatment outcomes. Nevertheless, just one illustration in this regard may not possibly be enough to drive home this point. Thus, let me quote from another important study. This one is a Harvard study that included more than 1.5 million hospitalized Medicare patients and arrived at similar conclusions, with the finding as stated hereunder.

Lower 30-day mortality under female internists than male counterparts:

This large study, published in JAMA Internal Medicine on February 2017 also concludes:Hospitalized patients who receive care from female general internists have lower 30-day mortality and readmission rates than those patients cared for by male internists.

“The difference in mortality was slight – about half a percentage point – but when applied to the entire Medicare population, it translates to 32,000 fewer deaths,” reported the above NYT article while commenting on this subject. I shall come to this finding in just a bit.

Why patient outcomes are different under the care of male and female doctors? 

To get an answer to this question, just as several other previous studies, the findings of the above issue of JAMA Internal Medicine also suggest more studies in this area. The aim is to zero-in on the key differences in practice patterns between male and female physicians, which may have important clinical implications for patient outcomes.

The researchers observed, understanding exactly why these differences in care quality and practice patterns exist may provide valuable insights into improving quality of care for all patients, irrespective of who provides their care.

Curiously, this question was answered in a 2002 study published in the JAMA that found female doctors spend more times with patients.

Female doctors spend more times with patients:

The paper, titled “Physician gender effects in medical communication: a meta-analytic review” wanted to find out why patient outcomes are different under the care of male and female doctors?This study was published in the August 14, 2002 issue of JAMA. It found, “Female primary care physicians engage in more communication that can be considered patient centered and have longer visits than their male colleagues.”The average difference in time spent with patients between male and female physicians is about 2 minutes, or 10 percent, per visit.

The researchers also found that female physicians engage in communication that mostly relates to the larger life context of patient conditions. It includes addressing psychosocial issues through related questions and counseling, greater use of emotional talk, more positive talk, and more active enlistment of patient input. From this perspective, they commented: When taken together, these elements comprise a pattern that can be broadly considered ‘patient-centered’ interviewing.

Would tailoring pharma communication accordingly fetch better dividend? 

Such highly similar findings, as evidenced by many reports, over a considerable period of time, add much credence to an important fact. These vindicate the concept that ‘patient-outcomes are better when cared by female doctors as compared to their male counterparts.’ In the pharma context, the subsequent question that surfaces: Can this finding be put to use while developing a tailor-made communication strategy with appropriate content for female doctors, harvesting a rich commercial dividend?

No doubt, before doing so, more data need to be generated and analyzed to corroborate the utility of the same in the pharma business. That said, the good news is, the work has already started in this area.

Some interesting recent findings on pharma-doctor interactions:

As reported by Fierce Pharma on October 26, 2018, moving towards this direction, CMI/Compas ventured into testing the water. It planned to find out whether drug companies should develop male and female doctor-specific communication strategy and content for more productive engagement with them. After an elaborate data analysis, CMI/Compas found the following:

  • As the most important source of new product information 59 percent of older-male-doctors rank pharma sales reps much higher. Whereas, only 46 percent of older-female-doctors’ think so.
  • 47 percent of older-male-doctors were most likely to see sales reps without any restrictions. Whereas, less than 40 percent of the other group saw reps without placing any hurdles to their visits.
  • Female physicians of all generations were found more likely to rank medical websites and online drug reference guides as more important tools than their male counterparts.
  • Women doctors are also likely to encourage patients using websites, electronic medical records and patient support programs more frequently than their male counterparts.
  • After receiving requisite information from pharma source, especially younger women doctors, are more likely:

- To change a patient’s treatment (20 percent).

- Try a new product (22 percent).

- Conduct more research using other sources (40 percent).

Conclusion:

These research findings do provide a fresh food for thought for the pharma strategists to ascertain whether a new ground exists to further hone the conversation between drug companies and the doctors. More specific point to ponder is, whether an avant-garde, as it were, customer-segmentation strategy be put to use, while devising a sharply focused communication and content for the male and female doctors, separately for each.

Coming back to where I started from: Should pharma-doctor communication be gender-specific? In my view, enough credible evidences, as captured in several large studies, send a clear signal towards an affirmative answer. Nevertheless, individual company would still be required to meticulously vet it out internally, for the best possible results.

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.

Patients’ Trust And Pharma Remain Strange Bedfellows?

Posted on by
Reply

Like many other industries, pharmaceutical companies too often talk about improving focus on effective ‘stakeholder-relationship management’. The doctors obviously form an integral part of this process. There is nothing wrong with it. Nevertheless, serious concern of ‘conflict of interest’ between the two entities is being raised on the means adopted to achieve the targeted end results.

Much as the drug makers expect that these methods are easily justifiable and would not bother anyone, it usually doesn’t happen that way, especially among the informed patients. When patient-interest gets compromised in this complex transactional web, the residual impact is awfully negative. Over a period of time, such episodes lead to a patient-doctor trust-gap, having a snowballing effect on the integral constituent of this saga – the pharma industry.

In this article, I shall briefly explore the scale and depth of such trust-gap and try to fathom who can effectively address this cancerous spread. This initiative when implemented well, won’t just protect patients’ health interest, ensuring affordable health care of good quality for all. It will also help rejuvenate pharma players’ declining reputation, facilitating long-term business interest –unchained by too many stifling regulations.  

For being in the paradise of health care…

‘Trust’ is the bedrock of any meaningful relationship and is usually built based on one’s experience, perception and feelings, besides a few other factors. It falls apart in the presence of deception or lies, even if these are well camouflaged. Similarly, clandestine acts when unearthed could also lead to the same outcome. The charted pathways for development or collapse of patients’ trust regarding doctors, or government policy makers trust towards pharma players are fundamentally no different.

In a scenario where patients can trust doctors for suggesting the best affordable treatment of good quality, including safe and effective drugs; hospitals and caregivers are just and conscientious; insurance companies are caring and fair in their dealings; drug prices are rational; published clinical trial reports on drug efficacy and safety are unbiased, the communication from pharma companies are trustworthy without any hidden agenda – we are living in the paradise of health care.

Nonetheless, the same paradise built on patients’ valuable trust would get shattered, as the drug regulators and the media get to know and unearth lies and clandestine dealings between doctors and pharma companies. Patients soon realize, though the hard way that they are being short-changed. A trust-gap is created, giving rise to an avoidable vicious cycle in the healthcare space. It is difficult to break, as one witness today, but not impossible, either.

The trust-gap is all pervasive:

Although, we are discussing here the trust-gap between doctors and drug companies on the one hand, and patients, drug policy makers and the regulators on the other – the trust-gap is all pervasive. This is vindicated by a startling headline of the January 16, 2018 edition of a leading Indian business daily. It says: “Over 92% people don’t trust the health care system in India: Study”.

It quotes the GOQii India Fit 2018 report saying a large part of which includes doctors, hospitals, pharma, insurance companies and diagnostic labs. The following table shows the ranking of some these constituents in terms of trust gap of Indians.

Rank Healthcare system People don’t trust (%)
1. Hospitals 74
2. Pharma companies 62.8
3. Insurance companies 62.8
4. Medical clinics 52.6
5. Doctors 50.6
6. Diagnostic Labs 46.1

The survey emphasizes that a series of failure, particularly the negligence of hospitals in the recent past has made it hard to trust in the system. The lack of transparency was the other reason that stands out.

Not a recent phenomenon, but increasing:

A trust-deficit in the healthcare system isn’t a recent phenomenon. This was corroborated in the article, titled ‘Doctors, patients, and the drug industry: Partners, friends, or foes?’ It was published almost a decade ago – in the February 07, 2009 edition (Volume 338) of the British Medical Journal (BMJ). The authors quoted a contemporary report issued by the ‘Royal College of Physicians’, which captured an all-time low relationship between the drug industry, academia, healthcare professionals, and patients, even at that time. The paper suggested that it is in the interests of all parties to bridge the trust-gap, without further delay.

As mentioned before, this particular discussion will focus on just two areas – pharma companies and the doctors – not all constituents of the health care system. This is primarily to have a congruity with my previous discussion on the importance of ‘perception’ in pharma. From that perspective, it is evident from the BMJ paper that a trust-gap exists not just in the doctor-patient relationship, but also between the drug policy makers and the pharma industry. I shall try to drive home this point with the following two examples.

 A. The trust-gap in doctor-patient relationships for ‘Conflict of Interests’:

The article titled, “Conflict of Interest in Medicine” featuring in the JAMA Network on May 02, 2017 described ‘Conflict of Interest’ as ‘a situation in which a person is or appears to be at risk of acting in a biased way because of personal interests.’

The article further elaborated thatdoctors’ relationships with drug companies (including any payments or gifts received from the companies) might affect how they report the results of research studies, what they teach medical students about particular drugs, or what treatments they recommend for patients. Moreover, doctors may preferentially refer patients to those diagnostic facilities for tests that may financially benefit them for doing so.

B. The trust gap between the government policy makers and the pharma industry:

That such trust-deficit is all pervasive, gets reverberated even through the speeches of no less than the Prime Minister of India.

On April 18, 2018, during an interactive session of theBharat Ki Baat, Sabka Saath‘ diaspora event at the Central Hall in Westminster, UK, Prime Minister Modi,reportedly said that doctors visit Singapore and Dubai to attend conferences, and not because someone is sick. “The pharma companies invite them for that. To finally break the resultant sale of expensive medicines, the government has launched generic stores where medicines of similar quality are sold at cheaper prices” – the PM further added during his interaction with the audience present in this function at London.

As expected, the medical community in India expressed displeasure over the remark of the PM on doctors and pharma companies on a foreign soil, the same media report highlighted.

Interestingly, just a year ago, on April 17, 2017, while inaugurating a hospital in Surat, a home to several top Indian generic drug makers Prime Minister Modi had said: “We are going to make legal arrangements to ensure that when doctors write prescriptions they write that generic medicines are sufficient and that there is no need for any other medicine.”

Some ineffective interventions:

As I said before, this downward spiral with a widening trust-gap in the healthcare space of the country needs to be arrested soon, with effective steps. The best remedial measure in such cases will obviously be self-regulation by all concerned, keeping patients’ interest at the center.

As an antidote to this problem, in the previous Government regime, ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’ was put in place, but only for voluntary implementation by the drug companies.

Enough time has elapsed in experimenting with this process, since then. Regrettably, like many other countries, self-regulation in this area to address the malady of trust deficit hasn’t worked in India too. Both the ‘Professional Conduct and Ethics’ of Medical Council of India (MCI) for doctors, and the UCPMP of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) for drug companies intended to address the so-called doctor-pharma industry unholy nexus, have not yielded expected results. The saga continues, unabated.

Conclusion:

From the patient-interest perspective, what is happening today in the global healthcare space is indeed baffling. Improving access to good quality, affordable drugs for all, has become a challenge in many countries, just as in India. Consequently, alleged unholy doctor-industry nexus that contributes a significant part to this problem, is attracting greater public attention today. The issue is being often raised even at the highest echelon of the incumbent government. But, more puzzling is, even after the PM’s public anguish, the DoP doesn’t seem to have walked the talk. Much hyped – the proposed mandatory UCPMP has not yet seen the light of the day, despite a clear indication of the same.

The question then arises, what happens if it does not happen due to political or any other compulsions? In that case, I reckon, the primary initiative to bridge the existing trust-gap, should rest on pharma companies. They may not always agree with all public allegations leveled against them, as the creator of this ungodly collaboration, and rightly so. Nonetheless, remaining in a perpetual denial mode in this regard, won’t help the pharma industry, anymore. More so, when the number of net-savvy, reasonably well-informed and globally connected patient groups, are fast increasing. Besides being fair in all business transactions, drug players need to sincerely engage with patients, not in usual condescending ways, but with due respect, for mutual benefits.

Otherwise, despite pharma industry and patients being interdependent in so many ways, sans a strict regulatory framework with legal teeth, ‘patients’ trust’ and ‘pharma’ will continue to remain uneasy, if not strange bedfellows.

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 by
Reply

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.