Tag Archives: corporate

Winning By Creating A Strong Pharma ‘Brand Identity’

Posted on by
Reply

Since the beginning of 2022, several top global pharma majors are exhibiting their renewed focus on creating a new corporate ‘brand-identity’. Its key purpose is to chart a new strategic frontier where their brands will stand out in the highly competitive pharma market – gaining a greater share of mind of the customers.

This happened recently with GSK, as reported on June 9, 2022. Prior to this announcement, on February 03, 2022, the French pharma major Sanofi, reportedly, undertook a similar change to refocus on a new brand-identity. It began with a new simplified logo of plain “Sanofi,” apparently, signifying a nod to the tech world.

Against the above backdrop, in this article, I shall deliberate in the process of winning a marketing warfare by creating, and effectively leveraging a strong pharma corporate ‘Brand Identity.’

Instead of starting this discussion with what changes the above companies have made and why, let me try to be on the same page on two important facets in this area. First – what is generally considered as critical ingredients of a ‘brand identity.’ And then – why initiatives of creating a targeted and stronger pharma ‘brand identity’ are gaining increasing importance to pharma marketers of many top companies, across the word.

Some critical ingredients of brand identity:

As defined by the April 11, 2022, issue of Investopedia: ‘Brand identity’ reflects the intent behind branding with the visible elements of a brand, such as color, design, and logo, that identify and distinguish the brand in customers’ minds.

The ‘brand identity’, therefore, encompasses, appropriate brand name selection, designing a logo commensurate to the company intent, well-thought through color selection, use of shapes and other visual elements that will facilitate brand promotion. Above all, employees who are at touch points of patients’ disease treatment process need to be thoroughly explained and appropriately trained to effectively leverage the purpose of change.

‘Brand identity’ is different from ‘brand image’:

It’s important to note that ‘brand identity’ is quite different from ‘brand image.’ While ‘brand identity’ relates to the intent behind the branding – creating and cultivating a strong ‘brand image’ in the customers’ mind – is its purpose. ‘Brand image’ educates customers about both intrinsic and extrinsic values that the brand offers through ‘Omnichannel’ targeted communication. This process helps create customer loyalty.

Increasing importance of stronger pharma ‘brand identity’:

A new trend alerted many pharma leaders, as brand new Covid-19 vaccines started being available to the public. For a vast majority of the population, across the world, vaccines were construed to be the only savior against the unprecedented life and livelihood disruptor – Covid-19 pandemic.

Interestingly, right from the regulatory approval of the first Covid-19 vaccine, although, all such vaccines had brand names – general public, doctors, media, even the World Health Organization, or Governments, started calling vaccines, predominantly, by company names. For example. AstraZeneca Covid Vaccine, Pfizer Covid vaccine, Moderna Covid vaccine, J&J Covid vaccine, and so on. Even the Corporate head honchos of respective vaccines and Covid related drugs, came to the fore with corporate branding to establish a meaningful relationship with the customers. Accordingly, in the marketplace, establishing a strong corporate brand identity has assumed greater importance, more than before. 

Studies vindicate this point:

That a strong corporate ‘brand identity’ helps create a differentiable product image, has been captured in several studies. For example, a study published by PharmaVoice on August 28, 2014, came to an interesting conclusion. After analyzing a situation in which multiple pharmaceutical companies developed a similar oncology product for the same indication, it said: “All things about the product being identical, including the price, we asked which company’s product would the oncologists recommend. The companies with the best company brand images scored highest, proving that company image alone would have a significant impact on recommendation behaviors.”

Would pharma’s strong corporate ‘brand identity’ impact the bottom line?

Several independent studies have also proven the same. For example, a mere 5% improvement in the strength of the company’s brand image and reputation could be expected to produce, on average, a 1.5% uplift in the share price over the year, translating to about a $550 million increase in market capitalization.

Acknowledging this point the above paper underscores: “Thus, any pharmaceutical company that wants to succeed and sustain a healthy, long-term competitive advantage, create differentiation in the short term, and insulate itself from weather storms of clinical disappointment, which invariably occur in pharma, would want to invest in corporate brand identity development that includes all drivers of reputation and relationship.”

It is happening more, especially in post Covid-19 pandemic period:

Let me now go back to where I started from. I started by saying: ‘Since the beginning of 2022, several top global pharma majors are articulating their renewed focus on brand-identity.’ I also wrote about deliberating what changes, especially the two pharma majors have made to strengthen their corporate ‘brand identity’ – for different reasons.

Let me start with GSK:

According to June 09, 2022, edition of the ENDPOINT NEWS, GSK – as it transforms into a pure Biopharma company – unveiled the reinvented company and the corporate brand to its employees first – on June 08, 2022, with the intent to bring everyone in the global company together.

The Company says, it’s about a way more than a logo. The Biopharma-only GSK believes, it has adopted a new purpose – “to unite science, technology and talent to get ahead of the disease together,” besides a new strategy, ambitions, and revamped ‘brand identity’.

The new corporate ‘brand identity’ of the corporation is a blend of familiar and modern of its vibrant orange brand color that remains. Now it’s a three letter-only corporate name - all uppercase and standalone - reimagined in a curvy contemporary logo. The new GSK logo “takes inspiration from the visual language of biosciences, genomic sequencing and data analysis, but – still feels warm and human,” as explained on the GSK website.

According to the Company, the new GSK’s ambitions also include people. It’s the final goal in its three debuted ambitions – impact the health of 2.5 billion people in the next 10 years, achieve specific competitive growth goals and make sure employees are thriving.

Coming to Sanofi:

According to Fierce Pharma of February 03, 2022, Sanofi also undertook a similar change at the start of the year. Ditching the Pasteur and Genzyme of old, the Company decided to go for a new ‘brand-identity.’ It rebranded itself as plain “Sanofi.” That switch also came with a new, simplified logo with a nod to the tech world.

According to Sanofi Press Release of February 03, 2022, the French pharma major’s ‘rebranding centers on a clean, lower case new logo. ‘The new logo is a representation of Sanofi’s new purpose and ambition, which is inspired by the simple and motion-oriented codes of the tech industry. The two purple dots embody the scientific journey between a starting point – the curiosity of questioning the status-quo and wondering “what if?” – and a finish line – the eureka moment where innovative solutions are unlocked to impact people’s lives’, it explained.

“With our new brand, we have sought to provide our people, our partners, patients and healthcare professionals with a clear and strong understanding of who we are and what we are set to achieve,” Sanofi highlighted.

The Company further reiterated: “Sanofi’s attitude is humble, authentic—and a little bit unconventional, too. We believe that our new brand and logo carve out a unique space in the healthcare industry that perfectly represents our new purpose to chase the miracles of science to improve people’s lives.”

Conclusion:

The journey of creating corporate pharma ‘brand identity’ initiatives is highly cerebral and originates from the top echelon of pharma management team.  The key objective of creating a strong corporate ‘brand identity’ is to ensure that the brand effectively depicts its own unique stance to the customers and differentiate itself from competitors in the marketplace.

I explained above, this process encompasses all branding activities of the company. The aim is to make the company to be perceived in a particular way by the target audience. Which is why, creating a strong corporate ‘brand identity’ is critical in shaping a unique corporate image, especially in generics dominated Indian pharma industry.

It goes without saying, such differentiation, in turn, helps expanding a loyal customer-base for performance excellence, more in the post Covid pandemic environment of India. Even, global pharma majors, are recreating their new brand-identity, for various reasons, and trying to leverage it effectively, to carve out a greater share of mind of more and more customers.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

 

Create Novel Marketing Pathways As Covid Mutants Keep Emerging

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

 

Pharma Marketing: The New Normal: Challenges of Change

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

Some macro-changes stand out:

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

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

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

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

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

More healthcare customers are digitally savvy now:

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

Purpose driven corporate branding is making better impact:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some pandemic-triggered India-specific challenges:

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray     

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

Uniting Pharma With Business Ethics: A Bridge Too Far?

Posted on by
Reply

Operating ethically not only is the right thing to do but also is fundamental to success in business. Poor governance and poor ethical business practices can lead to fines, public scrutiny and distrust – overshadowing good performance, destroying reputation, and undermining the morale and engagement of employees. …We must act in ways that build and maintain the trust of patients, healthcare professionals, governments and society. This was articulated in the Novartis Corporate Responsibility Report 2017, highlighting how important it is to unite pharma operations with business ethics for each company. But is it happening in reality?

The same question haunts yet again with the announcement of a new Code of Marketing Practice by the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations’ (IFPMA),effective January 2019. The pronouncement prescribes ‘a global ban on gifts and promotional aids for prescription drugs wherever the association’s member companies operate.’

However, the overall scenario gets more complex to comprehend, when on January 03, 2019  Bloomberg Law reported: ‘The change is causing concern among both U.S.-based and multinational companies like Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squib, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer Inc. about how to balance appropriate business behavior with respect for cultural norms in other countries.’ Interestingly, the IFPMA membership virtually covers all MNC drug companies, operating across the world. Thus, any concern on its implementation, especiallyamong some of the bigger names, raises more questions than answers about its effectiveness. What exactly has been the outcome of all such actions being taken, especially by the multinational pharma industry associations, from time to time. Have the patients been benefited – at all?

Keeping this recent development as the backdrop, I shall try to gauge in this article, is the bridge still too far to mitigate the widening gap between overall pharma operations and the standard of business ethics -voluntary code of practices of pharma associations notwithstanding?

Why pharma ‘business-practices’ and ‘business-ethics’ are so important?

Before charting onto the sensitive areas of ‘business practices’ and ‘business ethics’, let me recapitulate the meaning of these two terminologies to fathom why these are so important in pharma to protect patient health interest.

  • Business practice is defined as a method, procedure, process, or rule employed or followed by a company in pursuit of achieving its objectives. Itmay also refer to these collectively.
  • Similarly, Business ethics is defined as a form of professional ethics that examines the ethical and moral principles and problems that arise in a business environment. It applies to all aspects of business conduct on behalf of both individuals and the entire company.

Thus, ethical business policies and practices for pharma industry, when worked out both by an industry association or an individual company, aims at addressing potentially controversial issues, such as corporate governance, insider trading, bribery, discrimination, corporate responsibility and fiduciary responsibilities.

Ironically, despite well-hyped announcements of voluntary codes of practices from time to time, no commensurate changes in patients’ health interest are visible in real life. Thus, the very relevance of such edicts is now being seriously questioned by many.

What do reports reflect on ongoing pharma business practices?

To get an idea in this area, let me quote below from three reports, out of which one is specifically on the Indian scenario, which has not changed much even today:

“The interaction between physicians and medical representatives (MRs) through gift offering is a common cause for conflicts of interest for physicians that negatively influence pre- scribing behaviors of physicians throughout the world.” This was articulated in an article titled, “Gift Acceptance and Its Effect on Prescribing Behavior among Iraqi Specialist Physicians”, published by Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP) in June 2014.

A couple of years before that, on September 07, 2012, Reuters also published an article with the headline: “In India, gift-giving drives drug makers’ marketing.” Thereafter, many similar articles were published in various newspapers and magazines, possibly to trigger remedial action by the regulators in the country.

Very recently, on January 18, 2019, The New York Times (NYT) came out with a mind boggling headline – “Study Links Drug Maker Gifts for Doctors to More Overdose Deaths.” Elaborating on this JAMA study, the NYT wrote: “Counties where the doctors got more meals, trips and consulting fees from opioid makers had higher overdose deaths involving prescription opioids.”

The point I want to drive home here is that freebies in the form of gifts, travel to exotic places with free meals and stay, fees of various types clubbed under a mysterious nomenclature ‘consulting fees’, purported to influence doctor’s prescribing behavior, are now rampant. These are adversely impacting patients, as they are often compelled to buy high-priced drugs, unnecessary drugs, including antibiotics, sedatives and opioids, to name a few.

Are big pharma companies following the codes – both in letter and spirit?

The doubt that surfaces, are these changes just for displaying to the stakeholders how well and with stringent measures, drug companies are self-regulating themselves, on an ongoing basis? Before jumping to any conclusion, let us try to make out whether, at least the big pharma players are following these codes in both letter and spirit.

To establish the point, instead of providing a long list of large pharma settlements with governments for various malpractices, I shall cite just the following two relatively recent ‘novel’ examples related two top global pharma companies, for you to have your own inferences.

  • The first one is related to reports that flashed across the world in May 2018 related to Novartis. One such article described, “Congress demands info from Novartis about its USD 1.2m in outflows to Michael Cohen, just as it was negotiating payments for its cancer drug.” The report further elaborated, Novartis’ USD 1.2 million payment was made in the shell company of Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer and so-called ‘fixer’.
  • The second one is the September 13, 2018 report of The New York Times. It revealed: ‘Dr. José Baselga, the chief medical officer of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, resigned on Thursday amid reports that he had failed to disclose millions of dollars in payments from health care companies in dozens of research articles.”

The report also stated: “Dr. Baselga, a prominent figure in the world of cancer research, omitted his financial ties to companies like the Swiss drugmaker Roche and several small biotech startups in prestigious medical publications like The New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet. He also failed to disclose any company affiliations in articles he published in the journal Cancer Discovery, for which he serves as one of two editors in chief.”

Indian companies aren’t trailing far behind, either:

Many Indian companies are, apparently, sailing on the same boat. Let me illustrate this point by citing an example related to India’s top ranked domestic pharma player.

What it said: Way back on November 13, 2010, Sun Pharmain a communication expressed its concern by saying: ‘Over four decades since Independence, the government nurtured a largely self-sufficient pharma industry. But the entry of MNCs is putting most drugs beyond the reach of millions.’

The communique further added: ‘Even as the domestic industry begins to feel the heat of an unprotected market, public health experts are examining why drug prices in India are higher than in Sri Lanka, which imports most of its drugs. The MNC takeover raises the specter of an MNC-dominated pharma sector selling drugs at un-affordable prices, a throw ‘back to the scenario just after Independence, which the government painstakingly changed over four decades. Are we setting the clock back on the country’s health security?’

The reality thereafter: It’s a different story that today, the same Sun Pharma, despite alleged ‘high price drugs of MNCs’, occupies the top ranking in the Indian pharmaceutical market. Be that as it may, the point to note that the same company is now facing similar charges from other countries, almost a decade after. On March 2017, a media report came with a headline: ‘Sun Pharma, Mylan face price fixing probe in US.’

Incidentally,the company is mired with allegation on governance related issues, as well. A media report dated November 20, 2018 carried a headline: ‘Governance cloud over Sun Pharma, stock at 6-month low.’ This example is quite relevant to this discussion, as well, for its link with ethical business practices, as discussed earlier.

Additionally, class-action lawsuits in the United States for alleged business malpractices, including ‘pay for delay conspiracies’, against Indian pharma companies are also on the rise – Sun Pharma and Dr. Reddy’s top the list in terms of those who face most class-action litigation, reported a leading Indian business daily on September 02, 2017.

Pharma malpractices continue, DOP is still to make UCPMP mandatory: 

In this quagmire, where self-regulation doesn’t work, the government usually steps in, as happened in the United States and Europe. Whereas, in India, no decisive government action is yet visible to curb this menace, especially for protection of patients’ health interest. Let me try to illustrate this point with the following chronology of four key events:

  • On May 08, 2012, the Parliamentary Standing in its 58th Report, strongly indicted the DoP for not taking any tangible action in this regard to contain ‘huge promotional costs and the resultant add-on impact on medicine prices’.
  • Ultimately, effective January 01, 2015, the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DOP) put in place the Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) for voluntary implementation, despite knowing it has not worked anywhere in that format.
  • When voluntary UCPMP did not work, on September 20, 2016, the then secretary of the DoP reportedly said, the mandatory “UCPMP is in the last leg of clearance with the government. The draft guidance has incorporated suggestions of the pharma industry and other stakeholders.”
  • After another year passed by, on April 16, 2018, a news report reconfirmed: ‘4 years on, code to punish pharma firms for bribing doctors still in works.’ Its status remains unchanged till date.

Conclusion:

Even after Prime Minister Modi’s comment on April 2018 regarding the alleged nexus between doctors and pharmaceutical firms and doctors attending conferences abroad to promote these companies, decision paralysis of DOP continues on this important issue.

Pharma companies continue practicing what they deem necessary to further their business interest, alongside, of course, announcing their new and newer voluntary codes of practices. But, patients keep suffering, apparently for the apathy of the DOP to curb such malpractices forthwith.

Coming back to where I started from, when the malice is so deeply rooted, would any global ban ‘brand-reminders’, such as gifts, even if implemented religiously, work? Thus, the doubt lingers, for uniting pharma operations with corporate business ethics is the bridge still too far?

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s happening on the ground?

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

A glaring dichotomy exists:

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

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

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

Measuring disparity between the claim and reality:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Demands a fundamental shift in corporate cultural mindset:

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray    

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

‘Unbossing’ Pharma Culture For Millennials – A Sine Qua Non For Future Growth

Posted on by
Reply

Wishing All My Readers A Very Happy, Healthy, Peaceful and Prosperous 2019

‘Unbossing’ an organizational culture is an interesting idea – more in the context of promoter driven Indian drug companies of all sizes and scale. The word – ‘unboss’ is associated with nonhierarchical and open leadership culture, aiming to achieve value-based higher goals, across the organization.Not many pharma companies are attempting to imbibe this culture, just yet, barring a very few.

‘The organizational culture is something that comes with the job’ – has been the general perception of all working for the company, including most CEOs, since long. Pharma industry being a more tradition bound, and hierarchic, such acceptance is more visible in drug companies. However, some industry majors have started challenging this status quo by asking: ‘Has our organizational culture, over a period of time, become too hierarchical and somewhat archaic? Are we still clinging on to the dated, and somewhat fossilized views and practices of the great predecessors, which were quite relevant in those days, but no longer now?’

In today’s changing scenario, the corporate culture of a pharma company should be able to unleash the full potential of its employees, who are an increasing number of vastly talented millennials, with generational differences in behavioral pattern.  They come with different values, mindset, expectations, aspirations, and feel comfortable working in a an ‘unbossy’ culture.

In this article, I shall explore how in the new millennium some pharma CEOs are going beyond mere tweaking, to usher in a substantive change in the sensitive area of organizational culture, keeping pace with time. This seemingly rare breed of head honchos clearly recognizes that developing a positive corporate or brand image, starts with the development of an enabling corporate culture.

Let me now start linking the organizational culture and business practices with brand or corporate image, through stakeholder loyalty, to corporate business excellence – all in the pharma context.

Intended corporate image starts from practices within the company: 

Instead of being always combative to prove how unreasonable are the stakeholder demands emanating from the complex business environment, drug companies need to accept some hard facts, and act accordingly. One such fact is – a positive corporate image or reputation based on an enabling corporate culture that is aligned with organization’s identity and good business practices, help earn stakeholder loyalty and enhance business performance.

This concept has passed the acid test in several research studies, over a period of time, e.g. the research paper on ‘Corporate Identity and Corporate Performance’, published in Scandinavian Journal of Business Research (Beta), (ISSN 1504-3134. Its findings may be summarized as: It is important for managers to understand that while building a strong reputation, the intended image projected by the company, needs to be consistent with the actual identity perceived inside the company, especially by the important internal stakeholder – the employees.

This is because, a positive corporate image reflects the way customers perceive a company’s product and service offerings to them and vice versa. This is not a recent phenomenon. It has been happening over decades. But only a few companies have taken it seriously to bring necessary changes within the organization, by remolding the organizational culture in sync with time. This point was also vindicated by the August 1998 article on ‘The Effect of Corporate Image in the Formation of Customer Loyalty’, published in the Journal of Service Research.

The findings of the above study from the goods and service sector are based on theory of consumer behavior, cognitive psychology, and social cognitive psychology. It clearly articulates that corporate image has a significant, but the indirect impact on customer loyalty. The authors claimed that customer loyalty is also driven by positive corporate image.

A positive corporate image originates from an enabling corporate culture:

That developing a positive corporate image or reputation starts with the development of an enabling corporate culture, is also corroborated by the above article featured in the Journal of Service Research. It highlights that a favorable corporate image is formed through a process of continuous updating without any behavioral time-lag within the organization.

Like many other industries, this holds good in the pharma sector, as well, to excel in business. Itis fundamental to ensure that the concerned pharma company always enjoys the confidence and loyalty of its internal customers – such as employees, along with the external customers that include employees, doctors, patients, Governments and the general public, among others.

This is equally important to make sure that the overall organizational culture does not get fossilized, at any period of time. It should always remain in conformance with the changing needs of time – new aspirations of the employees to unleash their full potential, for the best possible business outcomes through customer delight.

Some early indicators of an image problem:

In the pharma industry, some of the early signs of a company’s brand or corporate image problems get manifested by its indirect impact on customer/stakeholder or employee loyalty. The symptoms may encompass a whole gamut of areas, ranging from high employee turnover, through difficulty in getting brand prescription support from doctors and hospitals, into deteriorating relationship with the government, culminating to declining company share value with business growth stagnating or going south.

Positive or negative culture originates from the C-suites:

Many may be well-aware that both a positive or a negative corporate culture originates from the C-suites – mostly starting from the CEO office, including his direct reports, percolating down to even the first line managers, across various functions. A CEO should obviously carry the can and be held accountable, unless such incidences are aberrations or restricted in some functional areas. The reason being, an adverse company reputation or image, usually develops when the concerned CEO’s primary focus is on short-term results – not investing enough time on developing a positive and enabling organizational culture.

As the famous Warren Buffett once said:“It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you’ll do things differently.” This is important for all consider, especially in pharma, and in today’s scenario.

In the Indian context, one recent example, could be the ruckus created, especially in the United States and Europe, on the dubious quality and pricing of generic drugs. A bit older example is – how once top ranked Indian pharma corporate Ranbaxy almost vanished in the thin air, over good manufacturing practices and drug quality standards.

What culture would the millennials want with pharma companies?

The December 10, 2018 report on the Best Company Culture for 2018 of Comparably - a workplace culture and compensation monitoring site, highlight some important parameters on what type of organizational culture the millennials appreciate and look for. To illustrate this point, let draw the following examples from the report:

  • Open and collaborative company culture, where everyone is updated on the latest and greatest things happening to the company as a whole, across functions.
  • Autonomy with willingness to help, from all.
  • Everyone is trusted to do their job, no micromanaging.
  • Anyone can ask questions and provide input that will genuinely be heard.
  • Hanging out with each other.

These are just a few examples to get a flavor of the change. It is also quite likely that many senior pharma managers may say: ‘Oh! We are already doing these and much more.’ It’s a different matter, though, that millennials of the same company may not be on the same page with these managers.

Unbossing pharma culture – the ball has started rolling:

At the Forbes Healthcare Summit 2018, held in New York City from November 28 -29, 2018, the global CEO of Novartis - Vas Narasimhan, called for a cultural shift to cater to the millennial generation’s needs, expectations and aspirations at the work place. He said: “The goal we set out to do is create an ‘unboss’ culture.” Half of Novartis current 120,000 employee strength being millennials. This move is directed to enhance the company’s appeal to them. A part of ‘unbossing’ the company culture in Novartis would be relaxing the current rules, by allowing employees to wear jeans to work.

Expanding the point while talking to Business Insider, Vas Narasimhan said: “For many people, they love the idea of the culture change, everybody then wants to know why can’t it happen right away. So, then you have to explain to people, this takes time, leadership, it takes a lot of changes in how we work. But I think there’s been a lot of acceptance of the culture change, but now the hard work has begun.” 

Some key traits of ‘unboss’ culture:

The article titled, ‘5 signs that you might be an ‘unboss,’ appeared in YOURSTORY on April 08, 2017 explains: The word ‘Boss’ originates from the Dutch word ‘Baas’, meaning ‘Master’. Where there is a master, there are slaves, and that’s not a good thing. More often than not, this word leaves a bad taste in the mouth, and rightly so. Thus, in a ‘unboss’ company culture, the topmost quality that the person in-charge, irrespective of organizational functions should possess, is being ‘unbossy’.

Some common leadership traits that define a ‘unboss’ culture, as I sense from the above article, are as follows:

  • Giving a great importance to sharing of knowledge.
  • Quickly identifying the ability in others and bring out the best in each team member.
  • Never feeling insecure and passing on credit where it’s due and not coveting praise that’s rightfully others.
  • Being flexible enough and possessing maturity to also do the legwork when required.
  • Treating everyone the same, without playing favorites, ever.
  • Creating an environment of learning and encouraging the team to experiment.
  • Setting benchmarks for each individual member to assess their own career growth.

In the pharma industry, not many leaders, I reckon, possess these qualities. Some drug companies, both local and global, may pontificate about practicing these qualities, but the majority of employees may not experience most of these in the real work situation.

Conclusion:

In most pharma companies, including India, much of the workforce, in addition to field staff, constitutes of millennials, which will continue to show an ascending trend. Thus, it is critical to align the company culture to attract and retain talents from the new generation A large number of companies still don’t consider this issue as a priority task for the corporation. The example set by the Novartis CEO, as quoted above is refreshing, in that sense.

Moreover, a number of research studies have established that organizational culture helps form the context within which corporate identity and corporate image are established. There can’t be a better time for a relook at the respective organizational culture, as the image of pharma industry has still not found its bottom.

A positive image, irrespective of whether it is a brand or a company, based on a robust organization culture, establishes a stout emotional connect with stakeholders. This is central for a long-term business success, and vice versa. It isn’t an easy task for any pharma player, especially for the promoter driven Indian companies of all sizes and scale, but not impossible, either.

Be that at it may, with the pharma business environment facing increasingly strong headwind, ‘unbossing’ pharma culture for millennials, I reckon, is sine qua non for long-term success – from the corporate perspective.

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.

Exigency of Cybersecurity in Digitalized Pharma

Posted on by
Reply

Digitalization – as it unfolds and imbibed by most drug companies, is presumed to herald a whole new ballgame in the Indian pharma business. Equally significant is the quantum benefit that the process will deliver to pharma stakeholders – right from drug companies to patients. It has already hastened the process of new drug discovery and will also help charting newer ways to meaningfully engage with stakeholders, besides enhancing treatment outcomes for patients, appreciably.

However, the flip side is, more benefits a company accrues from digitalization, greater will be the risks of cyber-attacks. Thus, preventive measures should also be equally robust. Otherwise, hackers can bring a company’s digital system to a standstill, causing not just a temporary loss in revenue and profit, but also valuable data leak, with considerable impact on even long-term business.

Strangely, associated risks of digitalization to pharma companies are seldom outlined in any discussion, leave aside alternatives for salvaging such untoward situation, if or as and when it comes. Unless, it is felt that the scope of such discussion doesn’t cover the implementors and falls totally on cybersecurity experts.

Nonetheless, it is intriguing in the pharma space. The reason being, pharma industry believes, while talking about the efficacy of any drug, its vulnerability in terms of side-effects, contraindications or drug interactions, should also be known to its users. That’s the purpose of a packaging leaflet. It’s a different reason though, that most drug companies in India have virtually jettisoned this practice as a cost saving measure, even for drugs that are not under price control. That apart, in this article, I shall explore the relevance of cybersecurity in the digitalized pharma world.

A question that help understand its implication:

During organizational transformation through digitalization in pharma, just like any other business, all crucial documents get transferred from paper to digital formats. The key question that follows in this regard is – what happens to these digital documents post cyber-attacks, if any? Any attempt to answer this question holistically will help people realize its implication – that ‘cybersecurity must be more than an afterthought.’

‘Cybersecurity must be more than an afterthought’:

The article, ‘Cybersecurity in the Age of Digital Transformation,’ published by MIT Technology Review Insights on January 23, 2017, stressed upon this critical point. It highlighted: “As companies embrace technologies such as the Internet of Things, big data, cloud, and mobility, security must be more than an afterthought. But in the digital era, the focus needs to shift from securing network perimeters to safeguarding data spread across systems, devices, and the cloud.”

Thus, while discussing the need to digitally transform a company’s business, cybersecurity must be part of that conversation from the very start – the paper underscored in no uncertain terms. That’s exactly what we are deliberating today - ‘as companies embark on their journeys of digital transformation, they must make cybersecurity a top priority.’

The cybersecurity threat may cripple innovation and slow business:

Cisco explored the concept of Cybersecurity as a Growth Advantage by a thought leadership global study. While assessing the impact of cybersecurity on digitalization, it surveyed more than 1,000 senior finance and line-of-business executives across 10 countries. Some of the key findings, as captured in the Cisco report, may be summarized, as follows:

  • 71 percent of executives said that concerns over cybersecurity are impeding innovation in their organizations.
  • 39 percent stated that they had halted mission-critical initiatives due to cybersecurity issues.

Interestingly, 73 percent of survey respondents admitted that they often embrace new technologies and business processes, despite cybersecurity risk. However, as we shall see below, pharma executives are quite confident of cybersecurity, probably because of inadequate experience in this area, as on date.

Companies are struggling with their capabilities in cyber-risk management:

The paper published in the May 2014 issue of the McKinsey Quarterly journal, titled “The rising strategic risks of cyberattacks”, also flagged this issue. It said: “More and more business value and personal information worldwide are rapidly migrating into digital form on open and globally interconnected technology platforms. As that happens, the risks from cyberattacks become increasingly daunting. Criminals pursue financial gain through fraud and identity theft; competitors steal intellectual property or disrupt business to grab advantage; ‘hacktivists’ pierce online firewalls to make political statements.”

McKinsey’s research study on the subject, conducted in partnership with the World Economic Forum also upheld that companies are struggling with their capabilities in cyber-risk management. As highly visible breaches occur with growing regularity, most technology executives believe that they are losing ground to attackers. Its ongoing cyber-risk-maturity survey research also ferreted out the following important points:

  • Large companies reported cross-sector gaps in their risk-management capabilities.
  • 90 percent had “nascent” or “developing” ones.
  • 5 percent was rated “mature” overall across the practice areas studied.

Interestingly, the research found no correlation between spending levels and risk-management maturity. Some companies spend less, but do a comparatively good job of making risk-management decisions. Others spend vigorously, but without much sophistication. Even the largest firms had substantial room for improvement – McKinsey reiterated.

‘Corporate espionage’– a prime reason behind cyberattack on pharma:

An interesting article appeared in The Pharma Letter on July 18, 2017 on this subject. The paper is titled “Cyber-attacks: How prepared is pharma?” It said:“The pharmaceutical industry is a prime target for hackers. In 2015, a survey of Crown Records Management revealed that nearly, two-thirds of pharma firms had experienced breaches in data, and that one fourth of these same companies had been victims of hacking.”The paper also highlighted ‘corporate espionage’ as one of the prime reasons behind hacking.

In view of this, the author articulated that the need for pharma and healthcare companies to fortify their security systems has become clear in recent years. The best method of protection is to prevent cyber-attacks from happening, or at least reduce the risk of a hack, he advised.

Instances of cyber-attacks in pharma are many:

To drive home the point that when firms and other organizations fail to strengthen IT systems against attacks, they incur high costs -the above paper cited an example from the year 2016. It said: “The average global cost of data breach per stolen record was US$ 355 for healthcare groups, higher than losses in other fields such as education (US$ 246/record), transportation (US$ 129), and research (US$ 112).”

The author further emphasized that besides financial losses, pharma companies and other healthcare groups risk losing the trust of patients and other stakeholders. With the ongoing digitization in pharma, new threats may become even more pervasive and sophisticated. “Thus, investment in cybersecurity must be a priority, if pharma players are to protect their data and the data of their stakeholders”, he added.

Are pharma executives experienced enough on cybersecurity?

As reported by Pharma IQ on July 31, 2018, one of its recent surveys found that around 70 percent of senior pharma decision makers are “confident” or even “very confident” in their company’s IT security. But, digging deeper, the survey uncovered that:

  • 42 percent of respondents’ companies do not routinely follow IT security policies,
  • 49 percent said that the corporate risk profile is not firmly understood across all departments.

The survey concluded that this could potentially lead to gaps in the security process. To me it appears, this could, as well, be due to inadequate experience of pharma executives in this area.

But, investment in pharma IT is increasing:

The good news is, even in the current scenario, many pharmaceutical companieshave started making investments in IT solutions, in general. This is corroborated by the 2018 survey by Global Data. Some of its important findings are, as follows:

  • 79 percent of them are currently making investments in identity and access management (IAM) solutions
  • 72 percent are considering investment in the solutions over the next two years.
  • 75 percent of the respondents are currently deploying some form of backup, archiving, alongside content and web filtering solutions to store, as well as, preserve their online information. 

Conclusion:

In pharma perspective, digitalization of business promotes paperless culture. It radically changes the basic infrastructure of maintaining critical documents in the workplace. Digital document storage systems become the nerve center of information on the company. All data – strategic or related to operations – internally generated or acquired – right across all critical functional areas, such as IP, research, clinical trials, manufacturing, sales and marketing, finance, supply chain legal and even of the CEO’s office, find a space in this digital data sever.

Although, the benefits of digitalization are well known and much discussed, it has a contraposition, as well – related to the vulnerability of the system to cyber-attacks. This flags a demanding need for protection of digitally stored assets from cyber-attacks, or to frustrate even any misdemeanorfrom amateur hackers. Thus, creating an almost impregnable, well-firewalled digital data storage server assumes prime importance. Equally important is formulating and religiously implementing a robust digital policy for the same.

Creating strong awareness among employees and stakeholders regarding cybersecurity and involving them in tandem with a system-approach, sans an iota of complacency, is expected to mitigate such vulnerability, appreciably. Thus, a sense ofexigency for cybersecurity in the digitalized pharma world, I reckon, is very real.

By: Tapan J. Ray   

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

Creating ‘Shared Value’ in Pharma – The Way Forward

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A laudable intent, but is it credible?

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

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

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

Consistently declining pharma’s image and public trust:

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

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

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

How will “shared value” creation help pharma?

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray 

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