Why And How To Be In-Sync With Gen Z As Pharma Paradigm Shifts?

Posted on February 21, 2022 by Tapan Ray

As science and technology, across the world, are progressing at a scorching pace – Covid-19 pandemic notwithstanding, today’s generations are growing up tech savvy – more than ever before. The trend will keep going north faster and with a steeper gradient. This is being driven by transforming social and economic environments – necessitating quicker solutions to any needs, problems, and expectations.

The current signals, as underscored by an article appeared in the Abbott Website on November 19, 2019: ‘Generation Z’s relationship with technology will also influence how the group relates to healthcare.’ Thus, it’s no secret that millennials approach their health care in drastically different ways than members of the Silent Generation, baby boomers or Gen Z, the article added.

Which is why, gradually shifting paradigm of the pharma industry would also eventually create a brand new one – with the Gen Z population growing at a faster pace. From the above perspective, in today’s article, I shall focus on the importance of this shifting paradigm, especially from the pharma industry perspective, including India.

Expectations and experience of Gen Z are contrasting:

Let me start with the definition of Gen Z. In January 2019, Pew Research defined Gen Z as anyone born after1996, just as ‘anyone born between 1981 and 1996 (ages 23 to 38 in 2019) is considered a Millennial.’ Gen Z grew up with technology, the internet, and social media. Moreover, according to another study of Pew Research, published on May 14, 2020, Gen Z is growing up having experienced catastrophic disruptions in almost all spheres of life and livelihoods, triggered by Covid-19 pandemic. It further ascertained, ‘the oldest Gen Zers have been particularly hard hit in the early weeks and months of the Coronavirus crisis.’

Thus, I reckon, the experience and expectations of many of such Gen Z from business and overall environment around – are quite different from earlier generations. More importantly, they will also have a strong influence on younger ones. Hence, the expected transformation would be much broader than what is currently visible today on the ground.

Some core characteristics of Gen X from pharma business perspective:

Various studies have captured the core characteristics of Gen Z, some of which are very relevant to pharma industry and are worth taking note of – for excellence in business performance. These include the followings:

Digital natives:

As McKinsey & Company highlighted in an article, published on November 12, 2018 that Gen Z is the first generation of true digital natives, and they are expanding. Whereas Millennials were regarded as ‘digital pioneers,’ who bore witness to the explosion of technology and social media, Gen Z populations are born into a world of peak technological innovation. In that environment information is immediately accessible and social media becoming increasingly ubiquitous – endorses another study by the Casey Foundation with its own findings on the core characteristics of Gen Z.

Financial minded:

Financial mindedness is another core characteristic of Generation Z for several reasons. A major one being, as discussed – many of them grew up witnessing unprecedented impact on lives and livelihoods caused by Covid-19 pandemic. Several other studies, like the one published recently by the Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, indicates that millennials and Gen Z are especially sensitive to healthcare costs.

Shrewd consumers and cost-value conscious:

Gen Z show characteristics of shrewd consumers and are also cost-value conscious. Being tech savvy, they are more influenced by fast-expanding digital, world and would like to make well-informed purchasing decisions after evaluating a range of options – both for products and services. They tend to be more influenced by the experience of real-life users, rather than a celebrity endorsement and value personalized products.

Gen Z to herald metamorphosis of future healthcare:

That it is happening gets retreated in the caption of the Fierce Healthcare article of June 16, 2020 – ‘Industry Voices -Generation Z is a game changer for healthcare.’ It emphasized, ‘Generation Z – are likely to turn the health industry on its head with their unique expectations for how healthcare should be delivered.’

Convenience is such a paramount for Gen Z that they are often willing to forgo a personal relationship with their healthcare provider. Besides, they will come to their physician and provider armed with data, information, and knowledge, unlike the past generations. Consequently, the danger for providers is, if Gen Z doesn’t get that desired convenience, they’ll go elsewhere, the article says. Simultaneously, ‘they also want a trusted adviser who can guide them toward holistic health and wellness.’ Thus, delivering patient-centric care, capitalizing on real-world data and automated care experiences, will be key to the transformative process of healthcare.

A recent survey also vindicates that the transformation has begun:

A recent Accenture healthcare consumer survey reiterated: “The new healthcare consumer is here.” The study clearly signaled a paradigm shift in this space spearheaded by millennials and Gen Z. Some of the survey findings encompass the following areas:

This group of healthcare consumer expectations for convenience, affordability and quality are redefining how they engage at each stage of care.

They are most dissatisfied with health care’s status quo and more willing to try non-traditional services, such as, virtual care and retail walk-in clinics, which are gaining in popularity and use with them.

With greater health care needs, they will increasingly look for services to satisfy their expectations for effectiveness, convenience, efficiency, and transparency.

With millennials and Gen Z to become the largest generation in not-too-distant future, they hold the most power to influence future healthcare models.

Some pharma players are tracking Gen Z and the changing paradigm:

Some global majors, such as Abbott, are also writing about it in their website Abbott.com. The Company has noted some of these changes, as follows:

Generation Z’s relationship with technology will influence how the group relates to healthcare. While growing up in a fully connected world, they ‘are less likely to have primary care providers and are more likely to use apps for scheduling, viewing medical records and paying bills.’ They are also more receptive to telehealth visits and connected healthcare than previous generations.

With the wait times for an appointment with a doctor growing longer, Gen X populations are more likely to use walk-in clinics or opt for urgent care centers which are more convenient.

Self-service and convenience play into Gen Z’s interactions with doctor’s and the industry as a whole. They prefer email, texting, and apps to manage their appointments or communications with doctors. Finding ways to communicate with this younger generation in their preferred modes, can help keep them engaged with the industry.

Millennials and Gen Z populations are most likely to use a wearable device. They typically reach out to friends or online communities to ask about a particular health condition before speaking with a doctor. Although they aren’t the groups using the more healthcare services, millennials and members of Gen Z are showing what the health industry needs to do to provide the best care.

Size of Gen Z population in India:

According to EY Gen Z survey, released on November 04, 2021, the next decade will be shaped by the maturation of Gen Z, the largest generational cohort in history, where India stands out with a population that includes 375 million people or 27% of the total population in Gen Z. Besides, the survey also underscores the importance of Gen Z in the shifting paradigm of market dynamics for the pharma industry, as well.

Conclusion:

Currently, healthcare industry, in general, and most drug companies, in particular -especially, in India, don’t seem to nurture the fast-growing population of Gen Z with a customer engagement strategy that they can relate to. What these players are currently marketing is mostly aimed at traditional customers, and who still form the majority.

Exploring these evolving changes, I wrote an article in this blog, on November 07, 2016. This was titled ‘Millennial Generation Doctors And Patients: Changing Mindset, Aspirations, And Expectations.’ However, the unprecedented impact of Covid-19 pandemic, alongside rapid advancement and adaptation of digital technology, tools, and platforms, has expedited this process.Apace with these changes the pharma paradigm is also shifting, at a much faster pace than ever before. Which is why, I reckon, it’s important for the entire health care industry in India to be in-sync with Gen Z expectations and engage them, accordingly.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

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

Posted on February 22, 2021 by Tapan Ray

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A brief recap:

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

The relevance of focusing on ‘core competencies’:

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

What constitutes core competencies to gain strategic strength?

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

Broad examples – from pharma perspective:

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

Examples of shifting focus on core competencies:

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

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

There were some valid reasons, though:

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

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

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

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

The first one is Daiichi Sankyo of Japan’s acquisition of India’s generic drug major of that time – Ranbaxy, in June 2008. The parent company claims: “We provide innovative products and services in more than 20 countries around the world. With more than 100 years of scientific expertise, our company draws upon a rich legacy of innovation and a robust pipeline of promising new medicines to help patients.” It is much known today, what happened to this acquisition, thereafter, for various reasons, including faulty pre-acquisition due diligence. However, later on, the domestic pharma leader – Sun Pharma, acquired Ranbaxy. Nonetheless, at least from Daiichi Sankyo’s narrative, its areas of core competencies, appear closer to any R&D-based drug company.

The second example is US-based Abbott Laboratories acquisition of domestic formulations business of Primal Heath care in India in May 2010. Like Daiichi Sankyo, this acquisition was also a part of Abbott’s strategy to enter into ‘generic drug business’ -dominated emerging markets. Abbott, at that time, apparently decided to expand its strategic focus beyond its core competencies in business, primarily of patented products. However, by the end of 2012, the company separated into two leading healthcare companies. Abbott became a diversified medical products company. The other one – a totally separate company was formed, with the name – AbbVie, as a new researched-based global biopharmaceutical organization. AbbVie now operates in India, as well – with erstwhile Abbott’s innovative brands. In this case, by an innovative restructuring of the parent organization, Abbott brought back its sharp focus on core competencies of both the companies with both doing well in India.

The third example is a recent move of reverting to the original focus of core competencies, when moving beyond these did not yield results. In that sense, this example is different from the second one. On November 16, 2020, Pfizer also announced the creation of ‘the new Pfizer’, as it reverted to its original core competencies of “developing breakthrough treatments and delivering innovative, life-changing medicines to patients around the world.” On that day, Pfizer completed transaction to spin off its Upjohn generic drug business and combined it with Mylan to create a new entity – Viatris Inc. Earlier, the company had sold its veterinary business, a baby formula unit and its consumer products division as part of a deal with GSK – for similar reasons. Earlier, the company’s moving beyond its core competencies to pluck low hanging fruits of generic drug business, did not yield dividend, as Pfizer’s profit in the generic drug sector, reportedly, had gone South.

Conclusion:

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

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

Posted on October 5, 2020 by Tapan Ray

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The pandemic has redefined the core purpose of a brand:

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

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

Surveys vindicate the rationale for redefinition:

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

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

Top Issues	% of respondents
How the company treats its own people/employees	28
How the company treats the environment	20
How the company supports the community in which it operates	19

Aligning purpose to create deeper connections with stakeholders:

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

Mostly millennial generation favor ‘purpose-driven’ brands:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Humira: Highlighted the participation in a community food drive, and volunteering in a playground construction project.

Lyrica: Highlighted the engagement in a multi-generational interaction and helping others.

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

On April 14, 2020 GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi announced a very unusual collaboration to develop a COVID-19 vaccine, expeditiously. This was done for a greater purpose, responding to the critical need of the society – saving millions of lives.

Roche called on and campaigned for the governments for focusing on testing and prevention, to maintain adequate medical supplies for health care professionals around the world. It also urged the health authorities to work closely with the life sciences industry to tackle the Covid-19 pandemic through international collaboration to tackle Covid-19 pandemic.

Conclusion:

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

Reaping Rich Harvest With Orphan Drugs

Posted on October 21, 2019 by Tapan Ray

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

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

How the core purpose of business – “Health for All”, gets served when companies bring to the market mostly exorbitantly high-priced drugs, having access only to a minuscule patient population?

How are these companies growing at a faster pace and doing better commercially, by focusing more on orphan drugs approved for the treatment of rare diseases, affecting a very small patient population.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The rationale behind so high pricing:

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

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

The situation in India for such drugs:

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

How will it impact Indian patients?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The motivation behind marketing more drugs for rare diseases:

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

The company gets seven years of market exclusive rights with the drug marketing approval for a rare or orphan disease. Interestingly, many drugs that now have an orphan status aren’t entirely new, either. Even if, the product patent runs out, USFDA won’t approve another version to treat that rare disease for seven years. This exclusivity is compensation for developing a drug, designed for a small number of patients whose total sales weren’t expected to be that profitable, otherwise.

Market exclusivity rights granted by the ‘Orphan Drug Act’ in the United States, can be a vital part of the protective shield that companies create.

Leveraging associated free pricing incentive, the concerned company can attach any price tag of its choice to the orphan drug, sans any competition.

Interestingly, more than 80 orphan drugs won USFDA approval for more than one rare disease, and in some cases, multiple rare diseases. For each additional approval, the drug manufacturer is qualified for a fresh batch of incentives.

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

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

Even some familiar brands were later approved as orphan drugs:

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

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

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

Companies focus on orphan drugs for better financial results:

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Pharma’s ‘Value Delivery System’ Still Tuned To A Self-serving Mode?

Posted on February 4, 2019 by Tapan Ray

Just as any other industry, pharma business is also primarily a ‘value delivery system.’ Its each and every employee need to understand and internalize this basic philosophy of the business. This organizational mindset needs to be created by the very top – setting examples for others to embody the same. The top could encompass the promoters themselves, or the professional CEOs – truly heading the organization and not working under the shadow of the promoters, or even the Board of Directors of professionally managed companies.

Although, this mindset should prevail pan organization, pharma sales and marketing functions are usually responsible to deliver a well-thought out set of brand values and associated services to doctors, patients and other stakeholders, effectively.

Against the above backdrop, I shall explore in this article whether it is happening in the pharma industry. If yes, is the ‘value delivery system’ is tuned to a self-serving mode, wherever it is happening? If so, to what extent it is denting the reputation and image of not just of the companies concerned, but of the drug industry as a whole. Before I proceed further, let me elaborate on what exactly I mean by the ‘value delivery system (VDS).’

Value Delivery System (VDS):

Creating more and more customers and retaining them, as long as possible, is the core purpose of any business, as was articulated by the management guru Peter Drucker, decades ago. Thus, like others, pharma organizations, as well, require making it happen in a sustainable way for business excellence.

The entire organization – starting from product and service development activities, right up to the frontline sales and marketing, should always be engaged in delighting the customers with the values they expect – driven by this mindset. It is worth noting that value expectations of pharma customers, are expressed in various ways. These need to be properly captured, analyzed, interpreted, packaged and effectively delivered during each company- customer contact, such as, while interacting with doctors, patients, hospitals and Government.

Thus, the term ‘Value Delivery System (VDS), encompasses an integrated chain of processes within an organization. From this perspective, it should get ingrained in the culture of a pharma company – without any broken links – between the functional areas and the integrated value delivery process.

Who is deciding what patients would value in pharma?

In the real world, ‘customers point of view’ or ‘what the patients would value’ in a product, is decided by the pharma companies – derived generally from the published clinical trial results of the products. Accordingly, these are woven around the brand features and benefits.

The value delivery system of the company packages these in a way that it thinks would generate increased prescription demand and delivers to all concerned. These values, which are overall financial business performance-centric, are mostly ‘self-serving’, and was working very well to meet the internal objectives, until recently.

How to ascertain value for patients in pharma marketing?

One way to ascertain these factors is to ask patients directly. But this process has certain limitations. This was once aptly articulated by Steve Jobs in an interview, where he said: ‘I think really great products come from melding two points of view -the technology point of view and the customer point of view. You need both. You can’t just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them. By the time you get it built, they’ll want something new.’

Taking a cue from it, I reckon, drug companies need continuously generate and analyze enough relevant data, from multiple sources, for an in-depth understanding of what patients will value. Making these values an integral part of the product and services, in a creative way, pharma should aim at delighting the customers through effective delivery.

The article titled, “Reclaim The Glory Of Value,” published in the eyeforpharma on January 08, 2019 also reiterated that such ‘value’ must always be defined by the customer. ‘And true value can only be achieved by understanding the world of the patient and solving the issues most critical to them.’

The external impact of product centric value assessment:

This financial result focused value delivery system got exposed to the stakeholders, since sometime. Overall business performance, though generally slowed down, some companies did produce extraordinary results, even after remaining tuned-in to the self-serving mode. Nevertheless, what got dented most is the pharma industry reputation, with a long-term impact.

Although, the survey capturing fast declining reputation of the drug industry, was done in the United States, it is apparently no different in other countries. Consequently, the quality of general public’s trust in pharma started getting murkier. Strong headwinds are now limiting the pace of progress of the industry, with many governments, including India, taking stringent policy measures to protect the patient interest.

The only way is to ‘reverse the pyramid’:

The only way for the pharma industry, in general, is to take a fresh look at their business approach, which still remains a value delivering machine. The companies need to think afresh while arriving at the ‘value for the patients’, by reversing the business pyramid – positioning the patients’ core values at the top, and delivering them to all concerned with well-crafted content, on the most effective platforms.

Tuning VDS in sync with patients’ core values, is fundamental:

It has been well established today the delivering values built around the quality, efficacy and safety of a brand can no longer ensure the best clinical outcomes for patients. This holds good even when the conventional sales and marketing activities are carried out through a large sales force and backed by huge financial resources. The main reason being, the pharma value delivery system is not delivering the core value that modern day patients expect.

Many patients of the new generation value empowerment and desire greater involvement in their end-to-end disease treatment process. For example, when they want understanding and help on how to manage the high treatment cost to survive from a life-threatening illness, some companies try to compare the ‘cost of treatment’ with the ‘cost of life’, which is an undiluted self-serving value.

It may sound absurd, but I have witnessed the top echelons of pharma companies saying so. This can possibly happen only when they feel contended with a smaller patient base fetching higher profit due to high drug prices, though unaffordable to most patients. But this model is not sustainable. It would further damage already dented pharma reputation, drawing more ire from stakeholders, including the government.

Thus, tuning VDS in sync with patients’ core values is fundamental in the emerging scenario. The question that follows what then are the core values of the new generation patients?

Two ‘core values’ that patients generally expect:

In my personal view, there are the following two ‘core values’ that consumers of medicines would generally expect during their end-to-end disease treatment process. However, the signals of such expectations – direct or indirect, may come in different ways and forms that need to be properly captured by the pharma companies, with the careful application mind:

Value of unique product and service offerings: The need for this value arises right in the beginning, when patients are in search of a solution for prevention, cure, or management of a disease. It is, primarily, the difference felt by the customers between the product and service offerings of one pharma company from the other. While finalizing the choice for the resolution of the problem, patients may take into account one more important factor. This usually covers the quality of their interaction with the doctors, including the pharma companies, though their respective patient engagement platforms, if any.

Value of a unique patient experience: After making the final choice, patients would value to feel a unique experience during the entire span of the treatment process. The quality of a brand, its effectiveness, safety, affordability and accessibility, among others, would be the individual components of the whole experience. What would matter most is the residual impact, created by the sum total of each of these components. And this value may be termed as – the unique patient experience.

Effectively delivered, the wholesome impact of patients’ treatment experience will be a lot more than the sum total of each the individual components, as mentioned above. Conversely, any hurdle faced by patients even with one component of this value chain, can potentially create a bad patient experience. This may adversely affect both patients and the concerned pharma company, in tangible terms, which I shall discuss below. Thus, the perceived value of ‘unique patient experience’ is very high, and can’t be wished away, any longer.

Tangible gain of pharma for doing so, or vice versa:

Let me illustrate this point with an example – drawing from the above core values and a self-serving value delivery system.

As we know, non-adherence to medication is one of the important reasons for poor clinical outcomes, besides progression of the ailment – further compounding the disease burden. Ample research studies indicate that ‘high cost of drugs is the biggest barrier to medication adherence,’ or, at least, one of the major causes of non-adherence.

Patients pay for non-adherence by their deteriorating health conditions. Alongside, pharma companies also pay a high price in terms of lost sales and profit, besides dent in reputation – for this single factor. Another research report estimated an annual revenue loss of USD 637 billion for non-adherence to medications for the treatment of chronic conditions. The same report highlighted, globally, revenue loss has increased from USD 564 billion in 2012 to USD 637 billion in 2015, with US-based revenue losses increasing from USD 188 billion in 2012 to USD 250 billion in 2015. Otherwise, this could have been a significant tangible gain for pharma.

Conclusion:

Pharma business, just as any other industry, is a value delivery system. This system needs to be optimized, both for tangible financial gains and also for building company reputation. Creating increasingly satisfied patients, including other stakeholders, should be the prime drivers for this optimization process.

Two core values – built on signals, suggestions and indications coming from the bottom of a conventional business pyramid – the patients, need to be effectively captured, analyzed, packaged and then delivered through the VDS. In no way, these values are to be based on what the top of the pyramid thinks, based on only clinical trial results. Such values are usually self-serving in nature, the long-term impact of which is not quite favorable, either. Reversing the pyramid, patients should be allowed to play a pivotal role for the company in the core value creation of a brand, in innovative ways, for subsequent delivery on appropriate platforms.

This will create a win-win situation, both for business growth and also in delighting most patients with access to high quality and affordable novel treatments, for a healthy life. However,considering today’s reality where most pharma companies’ ‘Value Delivery Systems’ are still tuned to a self-serving mode, a serious introspection by individual companies seems to be an urgent need. More proactive players in this game, will emerge as winners with better business performance, in tandem with improved corporate image and reputation.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Pharma Stakeholder Sentiment: Back to Square One?

Posted on May 28, 2018 by Tapan Ray

Is it fair to push out the core purpose of an important process, or rather a mission, unfairly? Whether we like it or not, it happened that way, over a period of time.

Way back on December 01, 1950, George W. Merck (President and Chairman Merck & Co., Inc.1925-1957), epitomized the core purpose of the drug innovation process. This is something, which apparently was possible only for him to articulate exactly the way he did.

On that day, while addressing the students and the faculty at the Medical College of Virginia, Richmond, George Merck said: “We try to remember that medicine is for the patient. We try never to forget that medicine is for the people. It is not for the profits. The profits follow, and if we have remembered that, they have never failed to appear. The better we have remembered it, the larger they have been.”

To many of us, it may sound more as an altruistic statement, and not really coming from a businessman who wants to excel in the financial performance of the organization. Interestingly, that was not the case, either. Merck removed any possible ambiguity in his statement by stating categorically: “In doing this, it will be as a business man associated with that area of the chemical industry which serves chiefly the worlds of medicine and pharmacy.”

In this article, I shall deliberate on whether or not the core purpose of drug innovation, as articulated by George Merck in 1950 has been pushed out of the mind of the stakeholders for good.

Management Guru – Peter Drucker’s similar observation:

It is worthwhile to recapitulate at this stage that around the same time, the Management Guru – Peter Drucker also made a similar observation, which is relevant even today. He said: “Because the purpose of business is to create a customer, the business enterprise has two – and only two basic functions: marketing and innovation. Marketing and innovation produce results; all the rest are costs. Marketing is the distinguishing, unique function of the business.”

Interestingly, when the word ‘customer’ is replaced with ‘patients’, George W. Merck’s iconic statement fits so well even in the realm of business management, including drugs and pharmaceuticals.

Signs of the core purpose of new drug discovery getting pushed out:

The core purpose of new drug innovation in pharma business, as articulated by a top industry pioneer – ‘Medicine is for the patient and not for the profits’, was pushed out eventually, regardless of its reasons. Today’s core purpose of the same process has seemingly become just the opposite of that – ‘Medicine is only for the patient who can afford it – to maximize profit.’

This change in the core purpose was visible in a large number of instances. For example, when the then Bayer CEO Marijn Dekkers reportedly said: ‘Our cancer drug is for rich westerners, not poor Indians.’ However, his exact wordings were “we did not develop this product for the Indian market, let’s be honest. We developed this product for Western patients who can afford this product, quite honestly.” If so,the question that comes up: why then Bayer fought so hard and spent so much of money, efforts and time to keep selling this specific product in India – exclusively?

In any case, this statement from the highest echelon of one of the top global pharma players is a contentious one, especially against George Merck’s articulation, or even Peter Drucker’s for that matter, on the same. By the way, Dekkers made this commentat the Financial Times Global Pharmaceutical & Biotech Conference in December in December 2013.

A wind of change?

The hope for a wind of change flickered when in an interview, Andrew Witty,the erstwhile global CEO of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), signaled a totally contrasting view of his company. Witty said: “GSK is committed to offering all its new drugs in India at affordable prices.”

Much prior to this, on March 14, 2013 he told a conference on healthcare in London that: “It’s not unrealistic to expect that new innovation ought to be priced at or below, in some cases, the prices that have pre-existed them.” He further expressed: “The pharmaceutical industry should be able to charge less for new drugs in future by passing on efficiencies in research and development to its customers.”

Witty era is also over now. He retired from GSK at the age of around 53 on March 31, 2017. Perhaps his refreshing patient-centric thoughts would also not find any takers within the industry. Nonetheless, in March 2018, the same issue resurfaced in an interesting article, followed by a few other related developments.

Call for socializing drug development?

The issue, which is not just limited to high prices for new patented drugs, is much broader. An interesting article titled, “Developing drugs wasn’t always about profit, and it shouldn’t be now”, was published in Quartz- a news website owned by Atlantic Media, brings to the fore the same key point, yet again. It makes some profound observations, such as socializing drug development. The word ‘socializing’ may not be quite acceptable to many, though. Nevertheless, it raises some critical issues worth pondering over, such as:

Faith in the power of money pervades our modern medical system. Pharmaceutical companies aren’t evil (usually). They just choose to make the most profitable drugs, not the drugs of greatest value to society.

For example, despite antimicrobial resistance being a global threat, pharma companies have largely abandoned new antibiotic development on the eminently sensible principle that they are money-losers. Promising narrow-spectrum antibiotics – agents that precisely target pathogens and spare “good” bacteria - languish in development limbo because there is no hope that they might churn as much profit as several other drugs.

The coming disruption in pharma will force drug makers to focus even more on short-term profits and their own survival.

It’s high time, I reckon, to adequately address the dire need for a reliable supply of the medicines that make a vibrant modern society possible. All stakeholders, including the pharma industry, globally, would require putting their heads together in charting out a clear and time bound pathway for its effective resolution, soon. Otherwise, sheer gravity and the complexity of the situation may prompt the policy makers to move towards ‘socializing drug development,’ much to the dismay of many of us.

Hospitals creating nonprofit generic drug company:

On January 18, 2018, The New York Times (NYT), published an article titled “Fed Up With Drug Companies, Hospitals Decide to Start Their Own,” highlighted a novel initiative to address the prevailing situation, in their own way, without depending on others.

It reported, for many years, several hospital administrations have been expressing frustration when essential drugs like heart medicines have become scarce, or when prices have skyrocketed because investors manipulated the market. Now, about 300 of the country’s largest hospital systems are taking an aggressive step to combat the problem. They plan to go into the drug business themselves, in a move that appears to be the first on this scale.

‘The idea is to directly challenge the host of industry players who have capitalized on certain markets, buying up monopolies of old, off-patent drugs and then sharply raising prices, stoking public outrage’, the article elaborates.

‘Price of medications has soared, so have pharma profits’:

‘Big Pharma is jacking up prices for one reason – because it can,’ says a CNN Article, published on April 04, 2018. The article further emphasizes: “As the price of medications has soared, so have pharmaceutical company profits. Total sales revenue for top brand-name drugs jumped by almost $8.5 billion over the last five years. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that 67% of drug manufacturers boosted their annual profit margins between 2006 and 2015 – with profit margins up to 20% for some companies in certain years.”

It further writes, “Not only have pharmaceutical companies reaped outsized profits from these price hikes, so have their CEOs. According to a USA Today analysis, the median compensation package for biotech and pharmaceutical CEOs in the Standard & Poor’s 500 was 71% higher than the median compensation for S&P 500 executives in all industries in 2015.”

Conclusion:

This is happening the world over. But its degree varies. In those countries where there are drug price regulators, only a small percentage of the total pharma market by value comes under price regulation, the rest of the products enjoy virtually free pricing freedom.

Would this ground situation change on its own any time soon? There is no specific answer to this question, yet. Moreover, there doesn’t seem to be none around in the pharma industry today with the stature and articulated vision like George Merck. He started from the very basic. Drawing the ‘square one’, he clearly defined the core purpose of discovery, manufacturing and marketing of medicines. Today’s pharma industry, by and large, seems to be charting in other newly drawn squares. Maximizing profit is now considered a key objective of achieving the core purpose – and not an outcome of achieving the core purpose of pharma business.

However, there are some very early signs of several stakeholders’ sentiment changing in this regard. Are they moving back to the basic – square one?

From the chronicles of the past several years on this issue, pharma industry does not seem to be on the same page with those stakeholders, just yet. If they do, a humongous health worry of a vast majority of the global population could be effectively addressed, as many believe.

The reverberations of this sentiment, though rather faint, can be felt in many countries, including the United States, and not just in the developing world, such as India.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Is Drug Price Control The Key Growth Barrier For Indian Pharma Industry?

Posted on October 19, 2015 by Tapan Ray

The corollary of the above headline could well be: “Are drug price hikes the key growth driver for the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM)?”

Whenever the first question, as appears in the headline of this article: “Is drug price control a key barrier to growth of the IPM?”, is asked to the pharma players, irrespective of whether they are domestic companies or multinationals (MNCs), the answer in unison would quite expectedly be a full-throated ‘yes’. Various articles published in the media, including some editorials too, also seem to be on the same page, with this specific view.

Likewise, if the corollary of the above question: “Are drug price hikes the key growth driver for the IPM?”, is put before this same target audience, most of them, if not all, would expectedly reply that ‘in the drug price control regime, this question does not arise at all, as IPM has been primarily a volume driven growth story.’ This answer gives a feel that the the entire or a major part of the IPM is under Government ‘price control’, which in fact is far from reality

Recently, a pharma industry association sponsored ‘Research Study’, conducted by an international market research organization also became quite vocal with similar conclusion on drug price control in India. This study, released on July 2015, categorically highlights ‘price control is neither an effective nor sustainable strategy for improving access to medicines for Indian patients’. The report also underscores: “The consumption of price-controlled drugs in rural areas has decreased by 7 percent over the past two years, while that of non-price controlled products has risen by 5 percent.”

I argued on the fragility of the above report in this Blog on September 7, 2015, in an article titled, “Drug Price Control in India: A Fresh Advocacy With Blunt Edges”.

Nonetheless, in this article, going beyond the above study, I shall try to put across my own perspective on both the questions raised above, primarily based on the last 12 months retail data of well-respected AIOCD Pharmasofttech AWACS Pvt. Ltd.

Pharma product categories from ‘Price Control’ perspective:

To put this discussion in right perspective, following AIOCD-AWACS’ monthly pharma retail audit reports, I shall divide the pharma products in India into three broad categories, as follows:

Products included under Drug Price Control Order 2013 (DPCO 2013), which are featuring in the National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011)

Products not featuring in NLEM 2011, but included in Price Control under Para 19 of DPCO 2013

Products outside the ambit of any drug price control and can be priced by the respective drug manufacturers, whatever they deem appropriate

The span of price controlled medicines would currently be around 18 percent of the IPM. Consequently, the drugs falling under free-pricing category would be the balance 82 percent of the total market. Hence, the maximum chunk of the IPM constitutes of those drugs for which there is virtually no price control existing in India.

According to the following table, since, at least the last one-year period, the common key growth driver for all category of drugs, irrespective of whether these are under ‘price control’ or ‘outside price control, is price increase in varying percentages:

Value vs Volume Growth (October 2014 to September 2015):

Month	DPCO Product Gr%		Non-DPCO Products Gr%		Non-NLEM Para 19 Gr%		IPM
2015	Value	Volume	Value	Volume	Value	Volume	Value	Volume
September	2.8	1.2	10.9	1.1	11.5	9.0	9.9	1.4
August	3.3	(2.7)	14.5	2.4	15.2	13.7	13.0	1.6
July	5.1	(0.6)	14.2	4.1	11.8	9.9	12.9	3.3
June	5.6	(0.1)	16.2	6.2	14.6	11.7	14.8	5.0
May	5.3	(0.3)	12.1	3.4	7.2	4.3	11.0	2.6
April	11.1	5.3	18.4	9.6	11.9	9.6	17.2	8.7
March	17.6	9.5	21.7	13.0	15.6	13.2	20.9	12.2
Feb	13.9	7.6	20.0	10.1	14.4	9.9	18.9	9.6
Jan	6.9	1.8	14.0	3.7	NA	NA	12.7	3.3
2014
December	8.0	0.7	14.8	3.2	NA	NA	13.6	2.7
November	3.1	(3.4)	12.6	0.3	NA	NA	10.9	(0.4)
October	(2.4)	(5.7)	6.8	(1.7)	NA	NA	5.2	(2.6)

Source: Monthly Retail Audit of AIOCD Pharmasofttech AWACS Pvt. Ltd

Does ‘free drug-pricing’ help improving consumption?

I would not reckon so, though the pharma industry association sponsored above study virtually suggests that ‘free pricing’ of drugs would help improve medicine consumption in India, leading to high volume growth.

As stated earlier, the above report of IMS Health highlights, “The consumption of price-controlled drugs in rural areas has decreased by 7 percent over the past two years, while that of non-price controlled products has risen by 5 percent.”

On this finding, very humbly, I would raise a counter question. If only free pricing of drugs could help increasing volume growth through higher consumption, why would then the ‘price-controlled non-NLEM drugs under para 19’, as shown in the above table, have generally recorded higher volume growth than even those drugs, which are outside any ‘price control’? Or in other words, why is the consumption of these types of ‘price controlled’ drugs increasing so significantly, outstripping the same even for drugs with free pricing?

The right answers to these questions lie somewhere else, which I would touch upon now.

Are many NLEM 2011 drugs no longer in supply?

DPCO 2013 came into effect from from May 15, 2013. Much before that, NLEM 2011 was put in place with a promise that all the drugs featuring in that list would come under ‘price control’, as directed earlier by the Supreme Court of India. Even at that time, it was widely reported by the media that most of the drugs featuring in the NLEM 2011 are either old or may not be in supply when DPCO 2013 would be made effective. The reports also explained its reasons.

To give an example, a November 6, 2013 media report stated: “While the government is still in the process of fully implementing the new prices fixed for 348 essential medicines, it has realized that most of these are no longer in supply. This is because companies have already started manufacturing many of these drugs with either special delivery mechanism (an improved and fast acting version of the basic formulation) or in combination with other ingredients, circumventing price control.”

Just to give a feel of these changes, the current NLEM 2011 does not cover many Fixed-Dose Combinations (FDC) of drugs. This is important, as close to 60 percent of the total IPM constitutes of FDCs. Currently, FDCs of lots of drugs for tuberculosis, diabetes and hypertension and many other chronic and acute disease conditions, which are not featuring in the NLEM 201, are very frequently being prescribed in the country. Thus, the decision of keeping most of the popular FDCs outside the ambit of NLEM 2011 is rather strange.

Moreover, a 500 mg paracetamol tablet is under price control being in the NLEM 2011, but its 650 mg strength is not. There are many such examples.

These glaring loopholes in the NLEM 2011 pave the way for switching over to non-NLEM formulations of the same molecules, evading DPCO 2013. Many experts articulated, this process began just after the announcement of NLEM 2011 and a lot of ground was covered in this direction before DPCO 2013 was made effective.

Intense sales promotion and marketing of the same molecule/molecules in different Avatars, in a planned manner, have already started making NLEM 2011 much less effective than what was contemplated earlier.

Some examples:

As I said before, there would be umpteen number of instances of pharmaceutical companies planning to dodge the DPCO 2013 well in advance, commencing immediately after NLEM 2011 was announced. Nevertheless, I would give the following two examples as was reported by media, quoting FDA, Maharashtra:

1. GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Consumer Healthcare having launched its new ‘Crocin Advance’ 500 mg with a higher price of Rs 30 for a strip of 15 tablets, planned to gradually withdraw its conventional price controlled Crocin 500 mg brand costing around Rs 14 for a strip of 15 tablets to patients. GSK Consumer Healthcare claimed that Crocin Advance is a new drug and therefore should be outside price control.

According to IMS Health data, ‘Crocin Advance’ achieved the fifth largest brand status among top Paracetamol branded generics, clocking a sales turnover of Rs 10.3 Crore during the last 12 months from its launch ending in February 2014. The issue was reportedly resolved at a later date with assertive intervention of National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA).

2. Some pharmaceutical companies reportedly started selling the anti-lipid drug Atorvastatin in dosage forms of 20 mg and 40 mg, which are outside price control, instead of its price controlled 10 mg dosage form.

Why DPCO 2013 drugs showing low volume growth?

From the above examples, if I put two and two together, the reason for DPCO 2013 drugs showing low volume growth becomes much clearer.

Such alleged manipulations are grossly illegal, as specified in the DPCO 2013 itself. Thus, resorting to illegal acts of making similar drugs available to patients at a much higher price by tweaking formulations, should just not attract specified punitive measures, but may also be construed as acting against health interest of Indian patients…findings of the above ‘research report’, notwithstanding, even if it is accepted on its face value.

In my view, because of such alleged manipulations, and many NLEM 2011 drugs being either old or not in supply, we find in the above table that the volume growth of ‘Price Controlled NLEM drugs’ is much less than ‘Price Controlled non-NLEM Para 19’ drugs. Interestingly, even ‘Out of Price Control’ drugs show lesser volume growth than ‘Price Controlled non-NLEM Para 19 drugs’.

Government decides to revise NLEM 2011:

The wave of general concerns expressed on the relevance of NLEM 2011 reached the law makers of the country too. Questions were also asked in the Parliament on this subject.

Driven by the stark reality and the hard facts, the Union Government decided to revise NLEM 2011.

For this purpose, a ‘Core Committee of Experts’ under the Chairmanship of Dr. V.M Katoch, Secretary, Department of Health Research & Director General, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), was formed in May 2014.

The minutes of the first and second meetings of the ‘Core Committee of Experts’, held on June 24, 2014 and July 2, 2014, respectively, were also made public.

On May 5, 2015, the Union Minister for Chemicals and Fertilizers Ananth Kumar said in a written reply to the ‘Lok Sabha’ that “The revised NLEM would form the basis of number of medicines which would come under price control.” This revision is taking place in the context of contemporary knowledge of use of therapeutic products, the Minister added.

Would pharma sector grow faster sans ‘price control’?

If ‘drug price control’ is abolished in India, would pharma companies grow at a much faster rate in volume with commensurate increase in consumption, than what they have recorded during ‘limited price control’ regime in the country? This, in my view, is a matter of conjecture and could be a subject of wide speculation. I am saying this primarily due to the fact that India has emerged as one of the fastest growing global pharmaceutical market during uninterrupted ‘drug price control regime’ spanning over the last 45 years.

Nevertheless, going by the retail audit data from the above table, it may not be necessarily so. The data shows that volume growth of ‘out of price control’ drugs is not the highest, by any measure. On the contrary, it is much less than ‘price controlled drugs under para 19 of DPCO 2013′, which are mainly prescribed for non-infectious chronic diseases on a large scale.

I am referring to AIOCD-AWACS data for just the last 12 months, because of space constraint, but have gone through the same for the entire DPCO 2015 period, till September’15. The reason for my zeroing in on DPCO 2015 is for the three simple reasons:

- The span of price control in this regime is the least, even lesser than DPCO 1995, which was 20 percent.

- It is much more liberal in its methodology of ‘Ceiling Price (CP)’ calculation, over any other previous DPCOs

- It has also a provision, for the first time ever, of automatic price increases every year for price controlled drugs, based on WPI.

A safeguard for patients?

Medicines enjoy the legal status of ‘essential commodities’ in India. Thus, many believe that ‘drug price control’ is a ‘pricing safeguard’ for Indian patients, especially for essential medicines and ‘out of expenses’ for drugs being as high as over 60 percent.

In the prevailing health care environment of India, the situation otherwise could even be possibly nightmarish. The key reason for the same has been attributed to ‘market failure’ by the Government, for most of the pharmaceutical products, where competition does not work. I discussed this issue in my article titled, “Does ‘Free-Market Economy’ Work For Branded Generic Drugs In India?” of April 27, 2015, in this Blog.

In India, ‘drug price control’ has successfully passed the intense scrutiny of the Supreme Court, along with its endorsement and approval. Any attempt of its retraction by any Government, without facing a tough challenge before the Apex Court, seems near impossible.

Conclusion:

The fundamental reasons for overall low volume growth, or in other words, price-increase driven value growth of the IPM, I reckon, lie somewhere else, which could be a subject matter of a different debate altogether.

As I said in the past, IPM grew at an impressive speed consistently for decades, despite ‘drug price control’, and grumbling of the industry for the same. This high growth came from volume increase, price increase and new product introductions, the volume growth being the highest.

Most of the top 10 Indian pharma players, came into existence and grew so fast during the ‘drug price control’ regime. The home-grown promoter of the numero-uno of the IPM league table, is now the second richest person of India. These are all generic pharma companies.

Generally speaking, Indian pharma shares even today attract more investors consistently than any other sector for such a long time. Granted that these companies are drug exporters too, but they all gained their critical mass in partly ‘price controlled’ Indian market. The criticality of the need for consistent growth in the domestic market, by the way, still remains absolutely relevant to all the pharma players in India, even today, despite…whatever.

Growth oriented overall Indian pharma scenario remaining quite the same, ‘drug price control’ with a current span of just around 18 percent of the IPM, can’t possibly be a growth barrier. Otherwise, how does one explain the highest volume growth of ‘price controlled non-NLEM drugs’, which is even more than ‘out of price-control drugs’?

Be that as it may, in my view, implementation of public funded ‘Universal Health Care (UHC)’ by the Indian Government, in any form or calling it by any other name, can possibly replace DPCO. Similar measures have been adopted by all the member countries of the ‘Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)’ in this area, though following different paths, but nevertheless to attain the same goal.

Lamentably enough, the incumbent Government too has not ‘walked the talk’ on its number of assurances related to this core issue of health care in India.

Still, the hope lingers!

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Posted on July 22, 2013 by Tapan Ray

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

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

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

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

The core principle of healthcare reform in China:

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

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

Medical Insurance and access to affordable medicines:

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

Highly lucrative healthcare business destination:

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

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

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

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

Pharma MNCs growing bigger, outpacing local industry:

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

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

Chinese Government woke-up:

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

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

Violations meted with harsh measures:

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

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

Pharma MNCs targeted for alleged corrupt practices:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clampdown on government spending:

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

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

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

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

Crackdown on bribery and kickbacks:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happening elsewhere too:

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

Thus, the key question emerges:

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: core

Why And How To Be In-Sync With Gen Z As Pharma Paradigm Shifts?

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

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

Reaping Rich Harvest With Orphan Drugs

Pharma’s ‘Value Delivery System’ Still Tuned To A Self-serving Mode?

Pharma Stakeholder Sentiment: Back to Square One?

Is Drug Price Control The Key Growth Barrier For Indian Pharma Industry?

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