Tag Archives: Eli Lilly

Making Drug Pricing Transparent May Work Better Than Price Control

Posted on by
Reply

“Now, one-fourth of the Indian pharma market to be under price control.” This possibility was reported by some national dailies, on July 03, 2018. The new methodology of drug price control could be anything – ranging from earlier ‘cost-based’ model to the current ‘market-based’ one – to even the new pharmaceutical index, as proposed by the Government ‘think tank’ – Niti Aayog. This gives an indication of acceptance by the policy makers that none of the price control mechanisms have worked as intended, till the last 48 years. Otherwise, why are such changes taking place?

On the other hand, the drug pricing models of the pharma industry, are also not working. Drug pricing related issues, directly or indirectly, continue driving pharma reputation down south. Strong negative vibes on the industry continues, despite a vigorous and expensive advocacy of the industry trade associations, primarily positioning the need to encourage ‘drug innovation’ right at the front. No perceptible impact of this pharma strategy on the policy makers is still visible, besides a few spoon-fed media editorials – as many believe. The saga continues. The pricing focus keeps remaining solely on a company’s financial interest. How far the price of a drug can be stretched to benefit the company, is the point to ponder. Why aren’t the basis and rationale of drug pricing made transparent, voluntarily? In this article, I shall discuss on this contentious issue.

Current pricing approach becoming counterproductive: 

The good news is, of late, some global drug majors apparently have been compelled to realize that this approach is gradually becoming more and more counterproductive, inviting more drastic measures from many Governments. Even recently in the United states, ‘Trump wants U.S. Health Secretary to get tough on drug prices, opioids.’ This situation demands, more than ever before, that a measurable quantum of all-round health benefits accrued by patients with the medicine, have to be factored into the drug pricing model, now.

Can pharma too, look for an ‘Out of the box’ solution?

I found two excellent examples of ‘looking outside the box’ in an article featured in the Pharmaceutical Executive, on March 06, 2018. Both the illustrations from non-pharma companies focus on product output to the consumer rather than inputs on the same by the companies, such as the cost of a drug innovation to an innovative company. Many find difficult to accept – why for extending life of cancer patients by just three to six months, an innovative oncology drug would cost thousands of rupees more to the sufferers, or their family?

Couple of interesting ideas:

The two interesting ideas are as follows:

- Erstwhile Monsanto, the article says, ‘had historically been able to maintain its market position and technological edge in developing superior genetically modified seeds through patents and contracts with farmers. In order to fully capture the value of its genetically modified seeds, however, Monsanto went a step further and shifted to a royalty type price model, charging a fee after the crops were harvested based on the yield. This end-use fee shifted Monsanto’s price model from seed-based to yield-based pricing, i.e., from input- to output based.”

-  The second one comes from a time “when Michelin developed a new tire that lasted 25 percent longer than existing tires, the company found it difficult for customers to accept a premium” – the paper highlights. “Rather than giving away the innovation, Michelin changed its pricing model. Truck fleets, a key customer segment, track cost per mile for each truck as their revenue model is also based on charging its customers per mile. Michelin decided to adapt its pricing model and to offer the new tires on a price per mile rather than per tire basis. The company then offered a contract to replace the tires after they wore down. Under this new pricing model, customers perceived a parity price as they were not asked to pay more, while longer lasting tire from Michelin was able to capture a premium for its innovation” – the article emphasized.

Two patient-oriented pharma pricing models:

Looking somewhat ‘outside the box’ and trying to factor in patients’ overall interest, some global majors are contemplating the following two broad approaches:

  • Value based pricing (VBP)
  • Outcomes based pricing (OBP)

The Drug Pricing Lab (DPL) based at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center defines these two models as follows:

Value-based pricing: When the price of a drug is based on its measured benefits, for instance, in clinical trials leading to its approval.  Methods used to determine value-based prices are transparent, reproducible and data driven.

Outcomes-based pricing: Refers to arrangements between manufacturers and payers, in which the manufacturer is obligated to issue a refund or rebate to the payer that is linked to how well the therapy performs in a real-world population. This refund or rebate is off of a list price that the manufacturer sets.

These concepts are neither very new or untried. Nevertheless, these are being used very selectively by some global pharma majors, from time to time. There doesn’t seem to be any consistent approach with these two models, thus far. For example, in 2005, with its erectile dysfunction drug Levitra (vardenafil), Bayer entered into a “no cure, no pay” initiative in Denmark, where patients dissatisfied with the treatment get a refund. Moreover, there are several instances of interchangeable use of these two definitions, in various literature. But, I shall stick only to the above definition, in this deliberation.

Are there any takers for VBP?

A few other pharma majors, such as Eli Lilly, have accepted the need in finding a right balance between investment on innovation and providing affordable medicines, as the key to bettering the health of the world with value-based pricing. It will call for requisite engagement between the drug manufacturers and health planners, covering the following two points, especially in the Indian context:

  • Critical scientific evidence about new drugs would create a pathway to set accurate rates for better availability to patients who need treatment.
  • Making drug price regulators and health policy planners better anticipate the holistic impact of the drug on patients, leading to generation of more accurate efficacy and pricing/health economics data.

The major issue with VBP:

The critical point to note, that for a meaningful discussion on VBP, the pharma players will require to share their pricing data with the competent authorities. In this regard, the article, titled “Pricing Turning Point: The Case for Innovating Pharma’s Model,” published by Pharmaceutical Executive on March 06, 2018, flags an important reality.

It says,a drug pricing model consists of two parts – How to charge (the details of the rationale)? And how much to charge (the level)? The article reinforces that the pricing decisions in the pharma industry generally focus on ‘how much to charge’, for the last 100 years. This process is now being stretched to a mind boggling level that raises many eyebrows in ‘disbelief’. I, therefore, reckon, it would be a real challenge for the drug maker to make the basis or rationale of a pricing decision transparent to all. In that case, the moot question is, how would the value-based pricing work?

Are there any takers for OBP?

According to reports,  the erstwhile CEO of Novartis – Joe Jimenez, and his Amgen counterpart at that time – Robert Bradway, among others, publicly spoke about pegging drug costs to their outcomes. Intending to be a part of the drug pricing solution, Novartis inked performance-based contracts with Cigna and Aetna on its new heart failure medication Entresto, so did Amgen on its anti-lipid drug – Repatha. Novartis also fleshed out the details of outcomes-based pricing model in a comprehensive report, describing its benefits to address the affordability challenge. However, such initiatives have not gained momentum, just yet.

OBP may not be the right option, and why:

Thereafter,the Drug Pricing Lab (DPL), based at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center,analyzed that the methods manufacturers use to generate list prices are typically opaque, inconsistent, and driven more by market factors than clinical data. These methods are often referred to by manufacturers as “pricing to what the market will bear”.

‘The Drug Pricing Lab’ illustrated the basic difference to patients between the ‘value-based’ and ‘out-come’ based pricing models by looking into Amgen’s outcome-based refund contract with Harvard Pilgrim for Repatha (Evolocumab). Amgen had agreed to refund Harvard Pilgrim the cost of medication for patients who have a heart attack or stroke, an estimated 3.5 percent of individuals on the drug. This equates to a reduction in annual list price from US$ 14,100 to US$ 13,620. In contrast, the ‘Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’finds that a value-based price for Repatha would be US$ 2,200 to US$ 5,000 per year, one third to one fifth the expected price resulting from the outcomes-based contract.

VBP comes out as a better option:

Based on the available data, it appears that VBP is a better option that focuses on tangible value delivery of a drug to individual patients. This is quantified with the help of available statistical tools, in a transparent manner. Application of Health economics is also being tried in this area.

Thus, the core concept behind VBP is that any drug price should be a function of the differential value that it delivers over the conventional ones, generally used for treating the same disease. Unfortunately, arriving at a consensus on the ‘value assessment’ metrics for a drug, often throws a tough challenge, especially to the manufacturers.

Conclusion:

Recently, with exorbitantly high-priced new drugs coming into the market, the issue of drug pricing mechanism has become a major concern for all stakeholders. Pharma companies can’t wish it away, any longer, even with the high decibel advocacy of ‘protecting and encouraging innovation’ of new drugs. The consequent potential risks are becoming too costly.

This situation prompts the pharma players to reengage with the consumers, providing quantifiable details about the differential value that a drug offers to patients and its relationship to the price that the company charges.  This is easier said than done. It’s time for drug companies to establish a solid link between these two. As I said before, many stakeholders are refusing to accept, just to extend life for a few months, why should an innovative anti-cancer drug cost thousand or even lakhs of rupees more than a conventional one – pushing families into dire financial distress?

Pharma players can’t afford to remain a part of this critical problem, any longer. They should take responsibility to become a part of the solution. With VBP or with any other credible alternatives, making drug pricing transparent – voluntarily, may work better for them than facing mandatory price control. It’s a different ball game altogether, requiring a new mindset, and… the name of the game is: ‘out of the box’ Ideas.

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.

Biosimilar Drugs: First Indian Foot Print In An Uncharted Frontier

Posted on by
Reply

A homegrown Indian biologic manufacturer is now about to leave behind its first foot-print, with a ‘made in India’ biosimilar drug, in one of the largest pharma market of the world. This was indeed an uncharted frontier, and a dream to realize for any Indian bio-pharma player.                                                      

On March 28, 2016, by a Press Release, Bengaluru based Biocon Ltd., one of the premier biopharmaceutical companies in India, announced that the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) of Japan has approved its biosimilar Insulin Glargine in a prefilled disposable pen. The product is a biosimilar version of Sanofi’s blockbuster insulin brand – ‘Lantus’.

The Company claims that Glargine is a high quality, yet an affordable priced product, as it will reportedly cost around 25 percent less than the original biologic brand – Lantus. This ‘made in India’ biosimilar product is expected to be launched in Japan in the Q1 of 2017. Incidentally, Japan is the second largest Glargine market in the world with a value of US$ 144 Million. Biocon will co-market this product with its partner Fujifilm.

Would it be a free run? 

Although it is a very significant and well-deserved achievement of Biocon, but its entry with this biosimilar drug in Japan’s Lantus market, nevertheless, does not seem to be free from tough competition. This is because, in 2015, both Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim also obtained Japanese regulatory approval for their respective biosimilar versions of Lantus. In the same year, both these companies also gained regulatory approval from the US-FDA, and the European Medicine Agency (EMA) for their respective products.

Moreover, Sanofi’s longer acting version of Lantus – Lantus XR, or Toujeo, to treat both Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes, has already been approved in Japan, which needs to be injected less, expectedly making it more convenient to patients.

Key barriers to a biosimilar drug's success: 

Such barriers, as I shall briefly outline below, help sustaining monopoly of the original biologic even after patent expiry, discourage investments in innovation in search of biosimilars, and adversely impacts access to effective and much less expensive follow-on-biologics to save patients’ precious lives. 

These barriers can be broadly divided in two categories: 

A. Regulatory barriers:

1. Varying non-proprietary names:

A large number of biosimilar drug manufacturers, including insurers and large pharmacy chains believe, just as various global studies have also indicated that varying non-proprietary names for biosimilars, quite different from the original biologic, as required by the drug regulators in the world’s most regulated pharma markets, such as, the United States, Europe, Japan, and Australia, restrict competition in the market for the original biologic brands. 

However, the innovator companies for biologic drugs hold quite different views. For example, Roche (Genentech), a developer of original biologic, reportedly explained that “distinguishable non-proprietary names are in the best interest of patient safety, because they facilitate Pharmacovigilance, and mitigate inadvertent product substitution.”

Even, many other global companies that develop both original biologic and also biosimilar products such as, Amgen, Pfizer and others, also reportedly support the use of ‘distinguishable nonproprietary names’.

That said, the Biosimilars Council of the Generic Pharmaceutical Association argues that consistent non-proprietary naming will ensure robust market formation that ultimately supports patient access, affordability, Pharmacovigilance systems currently in place and allow for unambiguous prescribing, 

2. Substitution or interchangeable with original biologics:

Besides different ‘non-proprietary names’, but arising primarily out of this issue, automatic substitution or interchangeability is not permitted for biosimilar drugs by the drug regulators in the major pharma markets of the world, such as, the United States, Europe and Japan.

The key argument in favor of interchangeability barrier for biosimilar drugs is the fact that the biological drugs, being large protein molecules, can never be exactly replicated. Hence, automatic substitution of original biologic with biosimilar drugs does not arise. This is mainly due to the safety concern that interchangeability between the biosimilars and the original biologic may increase immunogenicity, giving rise to adverse drug reactions. Hence, it would be risky to allow interchangeability of biosimilar drugs, without generating relevant clinical trial data.

On the other hand, the Generic Pharmaceutical Association (GPhA) and the Biosimilars Council, vehemently argue that a biosimilar drug has a lot many other unique identifying characteristics “including a brand name, company name, a lot number and a National Drug Code (NDC) number that would readily distinguish it from other products that share the same nonproprietary name.”

Further, the interchangeable status for biosimilar drugs would also help its manufacturers to tide over the initial apprehensions on safety and quality of biosimilar drugs, as compared to the original ones.

3. 12-year Data Exclusivity period for biologics in the United states:

Currently, the new law for biologic products in the United States provides 12 years of data exclusivity for a new biologic. This is five years more than what is granted to small molecule drugs. 

Many experts believe that this system would further delay the entry of cost-effective biosimilar drugs, restrict the biosimilar drug manufacturers from relying on the test data submitted to drug regulator by the manufacturers of the original biologic drugs while seeking marketing approval.

A rapidly evolving scenario in the United States:

The regulatory space for approval of biosimilar drugs is still evolving in the Unites States. This is vindicated by the fact that in March 2016, giving a somewhat positive signal to the biosimilar drug manufacturers, the US-FDA released another set of a 15-page draft guidelines on how biosimilar products should be labeled for the US market. Interestingly, it has come just around a year of the first biosimilar drug approval in the United States – Zarxio (filgrastim-sndz) of Novartis.

The US-FDA announcement says that all ‘comments and suggestions regarding this draft document should be submitted within 60 days of publication in the Federal Register of the notice announcing the availability of the draft guidance.’ Besides labeling issues, this draft guidance document, though indicates that the ‘interchangeability’ criteria will be addressed in the future, does not still throw enough light on how exactly to determine ‘interchangeability’ for biosimilar drugs.

That said, these key regulatory barriers are likely to continue, at least in the foreseeable future, for many reasons. The biosimilar drug manufacturers, therefore, would necessarily have to work within the set regulations, as applicable to different markets of the world.

I deliberated a related point in my article of August 25, 2014, titled “Scandalizing Biosimilar Drugs With Safety Concerns” 

B. Prescribers’ skepticism:  

Initial skepticism of the medical profession for biosimilar drugs are, reportedly, due to the high voltage advocacy of the original biologic manufacturers on the ‘documented variability between original biologic and biosimilars. Which is why, any substitution of an original biologic with a related biosimilar drug could lead to increase in avoidable adverse reactions.

‘The medical platform and community QuantiaMD’, released a study just around September 2015, when by a Press Release, Novartis announced the launch of the first biosimilar approved by the US-FDA – Zarxio(TM) (filgrastim-sndz). However, in 2006, Novartis after suing the US-FDA, got the approval for its human growth hormone – Omnitrope, which is a biosimilar of the original biologic of Genentech and Pfizer. At that time a clear regulatory guideline for biosimilar drugs in the United States, was not in place.

The QuantiaMD report at that time said, “Only 12% of prescribing specialists are ‘very confident’ that biosimilars are as safe as the original biologic version of the drug. In addition, a mere 17% said they were ‘very likely’ to prescribe a biosimilar, while 70% admitted they were not sure if they would.” 

Since then, this scenario for biosimilar drugs is changing though gradually, but encouragingly. I shall dwell on that below.

The major growth drivers:

The major growth drivers for biosimilars, especially, in the world’s top pharmaceutical markets are expected to be:

  • Growing pressure to curtail healthcare expenditure
  • Growing demand for biosimilar drugs due to their cost-effectiveness
  • Rising incidences of various life-threatening diseases
  • Increasing number of off-patent biologics
  • Positive outcome in the ongoing clinical trials
  • Rising demand for biosimilars in different therapeutic applications, such as, rheumatoid arthritis and blood disorders. 

This in turn would probably usher in an unprecedented opportunity for the manufacturers of high quality biosimilar drugs, including in India.

Unfolding a huge emerging opportunity with biosimilars: 

This unprecedented opportunity is expected to come mainly from the world’s three largest pharma market, namely the United States, Europe and Japan, due to very high prices of original biologic drugs, and simultaneously to contain rapidly escalating healthcare expenditure by the respective Governments. 

Unlike in the past, when the doctors were apprehensive, and a bit skeptic too, on the use of new biosimilars, some new studies of 2016 indicate a rapid change in that trend. After the launch of the first biosimilar drug in the US, coupled with rapidly increasing incidences of various complex, life-threatening diseases, better knowledge of biosimilar drugs and their cost-effectiveness, doctors are now expressing much lesser concern, and exhibiting greater confidence in the use of biosimilars in their clinical practice.

Yet another, March 2016 study indicates, now only 19.5 percent of respondents feel little or no confidence in the use of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies compared to 61percent of respondents to a previous version of the survey undertaken in 2013 by the same market research group. The survey also shows that 44.4 percent of respondents consider that the original biologic and its biosimilar versions are interchangeable, as compared with only 6 percent in the 2013 survey.

As a result of this emerging trend, some global analysts of high credibility estimate that innovative biologic brands will lose around US$110 billion in sales to their biosimilar versions by 2025.

Another March, 2016 report of IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics states that lower-cost biosimilar versions of complex biologic, could save the US and Europe’s five top markets as much as US$112 billion by 2020,

These encouraging developments in the global biosimilar arena are expected to encourage the capable Indian biosimilar drug players to invest in this high-tech format of drug development, and reap a rich harvest as the high priced blockbuster biologic brands go off-patent.

Conclusion:

Putting all these developments together, and considering the rapidly emerging scenario in this space, it now appears that challenges ahead for rapid acceptance of biosimilar drugs though are still many, but not insurmountable, at all.

The situation necessitates application of fresh and innovative marketing strategies to gain doctors’ confidence on biosimilar medicines, in total conformance with the regulatory requirements for the same, as they are, in the most important regulated markets of the world.

It goes without saying that success in the generation of enough prescriptions for biosimilar drugs is the fundamental requirement to benefit the patients, which, in turn, would lead to significant savings in health care cost, as estimated above, creating a win-win situation for all, in every way.

As more innovator companies start joining the biosimilar bandwagon, the physicians’ perception on these new varieties of medicines, hopefully, would also change, sooner.

Biocon’s grand announcement of its entry with a ‘made in India’ biosimilar drug in one of the word’s top three pharma markets, would probably be a great encouragement for all other Indian biosimilar drug manufacturers. It clearly showcases the capabilities of an Indian drug manufacturer to chart in an uncharted and a highly complex frontier of medicine.

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 The Attempt To ‘Debunk Five Big Myths About Big Pharma’ Not Reconfirm The Truth?

Posted on by
Reply

Late last week while returning to India, to my pleasant surprise, I bumped into a longtime overseas friend and his wife working in the pharma industry. Incidentally, they were also traveling in the same flight with a plan to spend their vacation in India.

We both were immensely delighted spotting each other, and were trying to catch up with plethora of subjects at a break-neck speed and mostly with child-like zest. As a result, we were jumping from one topic to another, keeping many loops of discussion unknowingly incomplete.

One such rapid-fire colloquy got almost permanently interrupted with the final boarding announcement. It happened, just when he was referring to busting of some “myths about Big Pharma” by the global CEO of one of the Big Pharma constituents, recently. The article, he said before we got up, was published in the May edition of Forbes Magazine.

As I had missed this curious narrative during my recent relatively long overseas travel commitments, yesterday in Mumbai I did trace that out with the help of our “Google Guru” and went through the content of the article with interest.

‘Debunking Five Big Myths About Big Pharma’:

In the May 19, 2015 issue of Forbes Magazine, I came across an Op-Ed, titled “Debunking the Five Big Myths About Big Pharma”, written by Mr. John Lechleiter, President, Chairman and CEO of Eli Lilly and Company, whom I immensely respect as an icon of the global pharma industry.

The author in his article identified the ‘Five Myths’ as follows:

Myth1: Pharmaceutical companies exaggerate the costs of developing new medicines to justify high prices.

Myth 2: Industry does not develop most new medicines; they come from government and university laboratories.

Myth 3: Prescription medicines are the main driver of health-care cost increases.

Myth 4: Public and private health-care payers must accept and pay whatever prices drug companies charge for medicines.

Myth 5: Government-controlled pricing of medicines in other countries explains their lower health-care costs.

The article is indeed interesting, as it raises more questions than answers. This is mainly because, ‘the debunking of the Five Myths’ was done using the same old fragile arguments much often repeated by the international ‘Big Pharma Trade Associations’ and by some others as well, whom many call privately as their ‘poodles’, although I am not very sure about that.

The reason and time for ‘debunking’:

In the above Op-Ed John Lechleiter forcefully asserts:

“The Big Five Myths’ about this industry routinely poison debates, obscure genuine problems, and distort policy recommendations on healthcare. These myths have been all over the public arena again recently, and it’s time to confront them systematically.”

“The First Big Myth”:

As stated above, the Eli Lilly Chief described the first ‘Big Myth’ of ‘Big Pharma’ as follows:

“Pharmaceutical companies exaggerate the costs of developing new medicines to justify high prices.”

Arguments behind debunking the ‘Big Myth 1’:

The Chief debunked the first ‘Big Myth’ with the following argument:

“In fact: The research and development (R&D) expenditures of this industry are staggering – and since they are matters of public record there is no way and no need to exaggerate them.”

Raises more questions than answers:

Just to illustrate my point, that this article raises more questions than answers, I shall, try to explain the so called ‘debunking’ of this first of the ‘Five Big Myths’ of ‘Big Pharma’, as penned by Lechleiter.

The author seems to have missed the core narrative behind the so-called ‘Myth’ – lock stock and barrel. Whether deliberately or not, I can’t really figure that out.

The reason behind high costs of patented drug:

Even if for the arguments sake, what the author has said is accepted as a gospel truth while ‘debunking Myth 1’, experts’ discourses on the facts behind high costs of patented drugs do not just focus just on the ‘R&D Costs’, it also seriously points towards abnormally high ‘Marketing Costs’, which in many instances several times more than the ‘R&D Costs’.

Some hard facts:

An article of 6 November 2014 of BBC News, titled “Pharmaceutical industry gets high on fat profits” written by Richard Anderson, Business reporter, BBC News highlights:

Drug companies justify the high prices they charge by arguing that their Research and Development (R&D) costs are huge. On average, only three in 10 drugs launched are profitable, with one of those going on to be a blockbuster with US$1bn-plus revenues a year. Many more do not even make it to market.

But as the table below shows, drug companies spend far more on marketing drugs – in some cases twice as much – than on developing them… and besides, profit margins take into account R&D costs.

World’s largest pharmaceutical firms
Company Total revenue ($bn) R&D spend ($bn) Sales and marketing spend($bn) Profit ($bn) Profit margin (%)
Johnson & Johnson (US) 71.3 8.2 17.5 13.8 19
Novartis (Swiss) 58.8 9.9 14.6 9.2 16
Pfizer (US) 51.6 6.6 11.4 22.0 43
Hoffmann-La Roche (Swiss) 50.3 9.3 9.0 12.0 24
Sanofi (France) 44.4 6.3 9.1 8.5 11
Merck (US) 44.0 7.5 9.5 4.4 10
GSK (UK) 41.4 5.3 9.9 8.5 21
AstraZeneca (UK) 25.7 4.3 7.3 2.6 10
Eli Lilly (US) 23.1 5.5 5.7 4.7 20
AbbVie (US) 18.8 2.9 4.3 4.1 22
Source:GlobalData

The article states that in 2013, US giant Pfizer, the world’s largest drug company by pharmaceutical revenue, made an eye-watering 42 percent profit margin. The same year, five other major pharmaceutical companies made a profit margin of 20 percent or more – Hoffmann-La Roche, AbbVie, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Eli Lilly.

Why does the drug industry spend more on marketing than on R&D?

Thus, one most persistent question that is being raised by the stakeholders is: Why does the drug industry spend more on marketing than on R&D?

Quoting these facts, a November 6, 2014 article of ‘FiercePharma’, titled “New numbers back old meme: Pharma does spend more on marketing than R&D”, also pointed out that even John Lechleiter headed Eli Lilly’s marketing spending clocked US$5.7 billion, compared with US$5.5 billion for R&D. That’s a difference of 7 percent.

High marketing expenditure and increasing marketing malpractices:

Interestingly there appears to be a curious coincidences between fines paid by ‘Big Pharma’ related to alleged marketing malpractices and spiraling marketing expenditure.

As I indicated earlier in my Blog Post of December 29, 2014, the following are a few recent examples of just the last three years to help fathom the enormity of the problem on this issue and also to vindicate the point made above:

  • In March 2014, the antitrust regulator of Italy reportedly fined two Swiss drug majors, Novartis and Roche 182.5 million euros (U$ 251 million) for allegedly blocking distribution of Roche’s Avastin cancer drug in favor of a more expensive drug Lucentis that the two companies market jointly for an eye disorder.
  • Just before this, in the same month of March 2014, it was reported that a German court had fined 28 million euro (US$ 39 million) to the French pharma major Sanofi and convicted two of its former employees on bribery charges.
  • In November 2013, Teva Pharmaceutical reportedly said that an internal investigation turned up suspect practices in countries ranging from Latin America to Russia.
  • In May 2013, Sanofi was reportedly fined US$ 52.8 Million by the French competition regulator for trying to limit sales of generic versions of the company’s Plavix.
  • In August 2012, Pfizer Inc. was reportedly fined US$ 60.2 million by the US Securities and Exchange Commission to settle a federal investigation on alleged bribing of overseas doctors and other health officials to prescribe medicines.
  • In April 2012, a judge in Arkansas, US, reportedly fined Johnson & Johnson and a subsidiary more than US$1.2 billion after a jury found that the companies had minimized or concealed the dangers associated with an antipsychotic drug.

Where does most of the marketing expenditure go?

On February 11, 2015, an article published in the ‘The Washington Post’ titled, “Big pharmaceutical companies are spending far more on marketing than research”, stated:

“Most of this marketing money is directed at the physicians who do the prescribing, rather than consumers.”

The HBO video that had gone viral:

The HBO Video with a dash of characteristic British humor of “John Oliver: Marketing to Doctors (HBO)” captures the essence of the issue. Many readers much have watched this video earlier. Nevertheless it helps understanding the point.

Some people associated with the industry did attempt nitpicking on this video and quite understandably; they did not find many takers.

Conclusion:

As deliberated above, I submit with humility that there are ample hard facts, which would debunk even more forcefully, the ‘debunking of the remaining so called four myths’ as was elucidated in the Forbes Magazine article authored by well-respected John Lechleiter, the President, Chairman and CEO of Eli Lilly and Company.

This seemingly well-timed article from the global pharma icon, though with disappointedly fragile content, I reckon, would not be able to evoke the desired response from its target audience. On the contrary, it carries the risk of being construed as no more than a half-hearted attempt of defending the indefensible and in that process reconfirming the truth, camouflaged in the paper as ‘myths’.

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.

Corporate Branding In Pharma: An Evolving Strategy In The Emerging Scenario

Posted on by
Reply

Pharma advertisements in the mass media do not appear too frequently in India, for various reasons. Though few and far between, whenever these appear are mostly blunt and boring.

In that context, an interesting advertisement of a global pharma major featured in the May 25, 2015 Mumbai edition of the ‘Times of India’ arrested my curious attention.

The Ad does not talk about any medicine, nor does it caution us about or prevention of any disease. It does not even present the laundry lists of symptoms, urging us to rush to a doctor, whenever we experience any of those.

Though I was rushing thorough the pages of a bunch of newspapers at that time, under constraint of meeting an important deadline, the advertisement did prompt me to go into it. My eyes unknowingly followed the creative delivery of an intangible, yet unique ‘life style’ value proposition: “Life. To the fullest.” This was packaged with an innovative mix of intelligent copy writing and selection of emotive visuals with soft play of colors.

With a crisp copy, the Ad fondly takes one to the days of childhood, as it whispers…

“Remember when you were a child? The world was there just for you, to explore with bold and unbridled curiosity. A feeling of invincibility. Health fuels this state of mind, no matter your age.”

It then guides one’s attention to the corporate brand that commits to fulfill this promise and again with a cool swish tone:

“Abbott is about the power of health. We create new solutions – across the spectrum of health, for all stages of life. So every day can be just another play day.”

An innovative global ‘Corporate Branding’ strategy:

‘Wall Street Journal (WSJ)’ reported in December 2014 that in Rio de Janeiro, the same company created a WiFi channel for subway riders to listen to TED talks on their cellphones.

In Mumbai too, the Company has reportedly helped sponsor the TEDx Gateway convention, where there was an “Abbott Hive” room for participants to see new health technologies and meet speakers.

The WSJ article also underscored, “emerging markets accounted for about 40 percent of Abbott’s US$21.8 billion total sales n 2013. The sector will rise to about half of Abbott’s revenue after Mylan Inc. completes the acquisition of Abbott’s business that sells generic drugs in developed markets.”

Abbott reportedly planned to sell its generics business in the developed markets outside the United States to Mylan, retaining its generic brands in the fast-growing emerging markets.

Besides the above print Ad, I also noticed Abbott’s outdoor ‘Corporate Branding’ campaign in a couple of hoardings on Marine Drive and the Western Express Highway of Mumbai.

Just an example:

Before proceeding further, let me hasten to add that I have no intention, reason or motive to highlight any particular company’s marketing campaign, directly or indirectly, other than using it just as an example.

I reckon, this might leave a catalytic impact on an evolving frontier with a newer approach to ‘Corporate Branding’ within the global pharma industry in general and India in particular.

Such pragmatic and innovative strategic approach to create a novel corporate pharma marketing platform is indeed interesting. The domain experts in this area would be keenly watching its progress and would try to assess the net outcome of this seemingly cutting edge value creation process, on the pharma business as a whole.

It assumes greater significance as the process eventually aims at connecting with the consumers directly, creating an intangible value based robust cerebral link to overall brand portfolio offerings.

‘Corporate Branding’ versus ‘Product Branding’:

Corporate branding is broadly defined and explained as, “The practice of promoting the brand name of a corporate entity, as opposed to specific products or services. The activities and thinking that go into corporate branding are different from product and service branding because the scope of a corporate brand is typically much broader.”

Product branding, on the other hand, is “a marketing strategy wherein a business promotes and markets an individual product without the company name being at the center in the advertising or promotional campaigns.”

The success parameters:

Corporate branding is considered successful, “when consumers hear or see the name of the company they will associate, with a unique value and positive experiences. No matter what product or service the corporation offers, the corporate name is always an influence.”

If I am required to cite just one example out of many, and outside the pharma industry, I would say, ‘Apple’ has been established as a powerful corporate brand that focuses on the strength of its name as much as the features of any ‘Apple’ products.

The products usually attract a premium:

For a successful corporate brand, the name would immediately evoke a positive reaction in the consumers’ mind, without any detailed list of product features, and for which many consumers would be willing to pay a premium price, without any grumble.

Would it move the needle?

That’s really something to watch for. However, it holds that promise, undoubtedly.

The above types of corporate branding could help the concerned companies to significantly dilute the negative perception on a section of ‘Big Pharma’ constituents, acquired over a long period of time, though some of these players keep creating it even today, brazenly. This is happening as some of them continue faltering to even ‘talk the walk’ and most others do not probably want to ‘walk the talk’ either.

That said, the strength of the corporate brand image and the trust thus created on it would help building a strong positive image for the entire brand portfolio that the company offers, especially on brand promises, including efficacy, safety and overall high quality standards.

Broader impact of creation of a strong positive corporate public image with direct connects with consumers could be profound from sustainable business growth perspective, especially in a country like India.

Thus, innovative corporate branding strategies with direct connects to the consumers, like what we are discussing now, may help repositioning the pharma players as trusted healthcare partners.

‘Corporate branding’ initiatives of global pharma companies:

As reported by the ‘Wall Street Journal’, examples of initiatives taken towards this direction by some global pharma majors, besides Abbott, are as follows:

Pfizer’s “Get Old” campaign, though predominantly Internet and social media based, is aimed partly to strengthen its corporate reputation. With this campaign the company intends giving a new push to get people talking about their fear of aging, “Face your fears” being the company’s motto with its “Get Old” campaign.

Pfizer is reportedly also planning to showcase itself as “partners in health over a lifetime,” through corporate branding campaigns.

Johnson & Johnson launched a corporate advertising campaign, under the slogan “For All You Love,” focused on consumers, reportedly after the company faced recalls of children’s Tylenol and other over-the-counter medicines.

Eli Lilly & Co also has reportedly been planning to revamp its corporate brand.

Recently Biogen Idec changed back from the decade-old merger name to its original name, as the company would now be called just “Biogen”. The company used this name change to signal a new direction for the company.

The announcement of the change in name and the new logo was creatively used by Biogen to communicate the company’s broader focus beyond the multiple sclerosis treatments, which it is best known for, with the inclusion of Alzheimer’s and ALS treatments in its research and marketing portfolios.

Conclusion:

All these boil down to the important point, that the pharma marketers would ultimately be prompted to ponder, as the industry moves on.

Keeping that in mind, they may now consider brain storming with an open mind to crystallize their thought on: Whether for sustainable excellence in pharma business, the respective companies should focus on corporate branding campaigns, separately altogether, with strong and direct consumer emotional connects.

Thereafter, strengthening association between the ‘Corporate’ and ‘Product’ brands at appropriate times, directly or indirectly, could well be a strategic call.

It has been amply proved that a robust corporate brand, created painstakingly over time, would evoke stronger respect, trust and loyalty of the consumers.

While navigating through unpredictable business environment facing tough headwinds, or during product mishaps, if any, such favorable disposition of the consumers to the company as such, would prove to be an invaluable asset, in the long run. Nestle could well be an example after its Maggi saga in India.

For this reason, I reckon; it may be prudent keeping product brands at arm’s-length from the corporate brand. This could, of course, be leveraged as a dependable cushion, if situation so warrants. Otherwise ‘Corporate Branding’ campaigns should fly solo, as these keep reaping tangible and intangible sustainable significant returns for the company, over a long period of time.

To sum up, ‘Corporate Branding’, though currently is an evolving strategy in the emerging pharma scenario, shows immense potential to spread its wings to fly. Some global pharma players have already started initiating it in different parts of the world. Pharma industry in India too is expected to catch up with this new strategic ball game… sooner.

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.

Alarming Incidence of Cancer: Fragile Infrastructure: Escalating Drug Prices

Posted on by
Reply

According to the ‘Fact-Sheet 2014′ of the World Health Organization (WHO), cancer cases would rise from 14 million in 2012 to 22 million within the next two decades. It is, therefore, no wonder that cancers figured among the leading causes of over 8.2 million deaths in 2012, worldwide.

A reflection of this scary scenario can also be visualized while analyzing the growth trend of various therapy segments of the global pharmaceutical market.

A recent report of ‘Evaluate Pharma (EP)’ has estimated that the worldwide sales of prescription drugs would reach US$ 1,017 bn by 2020 with a Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 5.1 percent between 2013 and 2020. Interestingly, oncology is set to record the highest sales growth among the major therapy categories with a CAGR of 11.2 percent during this period, accounting for US$ 153.4 bn of the global pharmaceutical sales.

The key growth driver is expected to be an exciting new class of cancer products targeting the programmed death-1 (PD-1) pathway with a collective value of US$ 14 bn in 2020, says the report.

Another recent report from the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics also highlights that global oncology spending touched US$ 91 billion in 2013 growing at 5 percent annually.

Consequently, Oncology would emerge as the biggest therapeutic class, more than twice of the anti-diabetic category, which features next to it.

Key global players:

Roche would continue to remain by far the largest player in the oncology market in 2020 with a 5 percent year-on-year growth between 2013 and 2020 with estimated total sales of over US$ 34bn in 2020 against US$ 25bn in 2013.

In 2020, besides Roche, other key players in the oncology segment would, in all probability, be Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Novartis, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Merck & Co, the EP report says.

Escalating costs of cancer drugs:

As IMS Health indicates, the overall cost for cancer treatments per month in the United States has now reached to US$10,000 from US$ 5,000 just a year ago. Thus, cancer drugs are fast becoming too expensive even in the developed markets, leave aside India.

The following table would help fathom how exorbitant are the costs per therapy of the common cancer drugs, though these are from the United States:

Generic                               Diagnosis

 Cost/ Dose (US$)

Cost of     Therapy/    28 days  (US$)

Cost per  Therapy      (US$)
brentuximab Hodgkins lymphoma

14,000

18,667

224,000
Pertuzumab Breast cancer

4,000

5,333

68,000
pegylated interferon Hepatitis C

700

2,800

36,400
Carfilzomib Multiple myeloma

1,658

9,948

129,324
ziv-aflibercept CRC

2,300

4,600

59,800
Omacetaxine CML

560

3,920

50,960
Regorafenib CRC

450

9,446

122,800
Bosutinib CML

278

7,814

101,580
Vemurafenib Melanoma

172

4,840

62,915
Abiraterone Prostate

192

5,391

70,080
Crizotinib NSCLC

498

27,951

363,367
Enzalutamide Prostate

248

6,972

90,637
ado-trastuzumab emtansine Breast – metastatic

8,500

8,115

105,500
Ponatinib Leukemia

319

8,941

116,233
Pomalidomide Multiple myeloma

500

10,500

135,500

(Source: ION Solutions)

Even US researchers concerned about high cancer drugs cost:

It is interesting to note, that in a review article published recently in ‘The Lancet Oncology’, the US researchers Prof. Thomas Smith and Dr. Ronan Kelly identified drug pricing as one area of high costs of cancer care. They are confident that this high cost can be reduced, just as it is possible for end-of-life care and medical imaging – the other two areas of high costs in cancer treatment.

Besides many other areas, the authors suggested that reducing the prices of new cancer drugs would immensely help containing cancer costs. Prof. Smith reportedly said, “There are drugs that cost tens of thousands of dollars with an unbalanced relationship between cost and benefit. We need to determine appropriate prices for drugs and inform patients about their costs of care.”

Cancer drug price becoming a key issue all over:

As the targeted therapies have significantly increased their share of global oncology sales, from 11 percent a decade ago to 46 percent last year, increasingly, both the Governments and the payers, almost all over the world, have started feeling quite uncomfortable with the rapidly ascending drug price trend.

In the top cancer markets of the world, such as, the United States and Europe, both the respective governments and also the private insurers have now started playing hardball with the cancer drugs manufacturers.

There are several instances in the developed markets, including the United States, where the stakeholders, such as, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) of the United Kingdom and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) are expressing their concerns about manufacturers’ charging astronomical prices, even for small improvements in the survival time.

Following examples would give an idea of global sensitivity in this area:

  • After rejecting Roche’s breast cancer drug Kadcyla as too expensive, NICE reportedly articulated in its statement, “A breast cancer treatment that can cost more than US$151,000 per patient is not effective enough to justify the price the NHS is being asked to pay.”
  • In October 2012, three doctors at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center announced in the New York Times that their hospital wouldn’t be using Zaltrap. These oncologists did not consider the drug worth its price. They questioned, why prescribe the far more expensive Zaltrap? Almost immediately thereafter, coming under intense stakeholder pressure, , Sanofi reportedly announced 50 percent off on Zaltrap price.
  • Similarly, ASCO in the United States has reportedly launched an initiative to rate cancer drugs not just on their efficacy and side effects, but prices as well.

India:

  • India has already demonstrated its initial concern on this critical issue by granting Compulsory License (CL) to the local player Natco to formulate the generic version of Bayer’s kidney cancer drug Nexavar and make it available to the patients at a fraction of the originator’s price. As rumors are doing the rounds, probably some more patented cancer drugs would come under Government scrutiny to achieve the same end goal.
  • I indicated in my earlier blog post that the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) of India by its notification dated July 10, 2014 has decided to bring, among others, some anticancer drugs too, not featuring in the National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011), under price control.
  • Not too long ago, the Indian government reportedly contemplated to allow production of cheaper generic versions of breast cancer drug Herceptin in India. Roche – the originator of the drug ultimately surrendered its patent rights in 2013, apprehending that it would lose a legal contest in Indian courts, according to media reports. Biocon and Mylan thereafter came out with biosimilar version of Herceptin in the country with around 40 percent lesser price.

Hence, responsible pricing of cancer drugs would continue to remain a key pressure-point  in the days ahead.

Increasing R&D investments coming in oncology:

Considering lucrative business growth opportunities and financial returns from this segment, investments of global pharma players remain relatively high in oncology, accounting for more than 30 percent of all preclinical and phase I clinical product developments, with 21 New Molecular Entities (NMEs) being launched and reaching patients in the past two years alone, according to IMS Health.

However, it is also worth noting that newly launched treatments typically increase the overall incremental survival rate between two and six months.

Opportunities for anti-cancer biosimilars:

With gradual easing out of the regulatory pathways for biosimilar drugs in the developed markets, especially in the US, a new competitive dynamic is evolving in the high priced, over US$ 40 billion, biologics market related to cancer drugs. According to IMS Health, on a global basis, biosimilars are expected to generate US$ 6 to12 billion in oncology sales by 2020, increasing the level of competition but accounting for less than 5 percent of the total biologics market even at that time.

Alarming situation of cancer in India:

A major report, published in ‘The Lancet Oncology’ states that In India, around 1 million new cancer cases are diagnosed each year, which is estimated to reach 1.7 million in 2035.

The report also highlights, though deaths from cancer are currently 600,000 -700,000 annually, it is expected to increase to around 1.2 million during this period.

Such high incidence of cancer in India is attributed to both internal factors such as, poor immune conditions, genetic pre-disposition or hormonal and also external factors such as, industrialization, over growth of population, lifestyle and food habits.

The Lancet Oncology study showed that while incidence of cancer in the Indian population is only about a quarter of that in the United States or Europe, mortality rates among those diagnosed with the disease are much higher.

Experts do indicate that one of the main barriers of cancer care is its high treatment cost, that is out of reach for millions of Indians. They also believe that cancer treatment could be effective and cheaper, if detected early. Conversely, the treatment would be more expensive, often leading to bankruptcy, if detected late and would, at the same time, significantly reduce the chances of survival too.

The fact that cancer is being spotted too late in India and most patients lack access to treatment, would be quite evident from the data that less than even 30 percent of patients suffering from cancer survive for more than five years after diagnosis, while over two-thirds of cancer related deaths occur among people aged 30 to 69.

Unfortunately, according to the data of the Union Ministry of Health, 40 percent of over 300 cancer centers in India do not have adequate facilities for advanced cancer care. It is estimated that the country would need at least 600 additional cancer care centers by 2020 to meet this crying need.

Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer, accounting for over 1 in 5 of all deaths from cancer in women, while 40 percent of cancer cases in the country are attributable to tobacco.

Indian Market and key local players:

Cancer drug market in India was reported to be around Rs 2,000 Crore (US$ 335 million) in 2013 and according to a recent Frost & Sullivan report, is estimated to grow to Rs 3,881 Crore (US$ 650 million) by 2017 with a CAGR of 15.46 percent, throwing immense business growth opportunities to pharma players.

Dr.Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) is one of the leading Indian players in oncology. DRL has already developed biosimilar version of Rituxan (Rituximab) of Roche, Filgastrim of Amgen and has also launched the first generic Darbepoetin Alfa and Peg-grafeel.

Other major Indian players in this field are Cipla, Lupin, Glenmark, Emcure, Biocon, Ipca, Natco, Intas, Reliance Life Science, Zydus Cadila and some more. These home grown companies are expected to take a leading role in the fast growing oncology segments of India, together with the major MNC players, as named above.

Analysis of detailed opportunities that would be available to these companies and consequent financial impacts could be a subject of separate discussion.

Conclusion:

Unlike many other developed and developing countries of the world, there is no system yet in place in India to negotiate prices of innovative patented drugs with the respective manufacturers, including those used for cancer. However, NPPA is now moving fast on reducing prices of cancer drugs. It has reportedly pulled up six pharma for not providing pricing data of cancer drugs sold by them.

Further, CL for all patented anti-cancer drugs may not be a sustainable measure for all time to come, either. One robust alternative, therefore, is the intense price negotiation for patented drugs in general, including anti-cancer drugs, as provided in the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012).

This important issue has been under consideration of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) since 2007. The report produced by the committee formed for this specific purpose, after dilly-dallying for over five years, now hardly has any takers and gathering dusts.

I reckon, much discussed administrative inertia, insensitivity and abject lack of sense of urgency of the previous regime, have desisted the DoP from progressing much on this important subject, beyond of course customary lip services, as on date. Intense lobbying by vested interests from across the world, seems to have further helped pushing this envelope deep inside an inactive terrain.

The new Government would hopefully make the DoP break its deep slumber now to resolve this critical issue decisively, in a time bound manner, assigning clear accountability, without any further delay.

At the same time, shouldn’t both the Honorable Ministers of Health and Chemicals & Fertilizers, taking the State Governments on board, put their collective resources together to create the following, expeditiously:

- A robust national health infrastructure for cancer care

- A transparent mechanism to prevent escalating cancer drug prices and other treatment costs

Hope, the good days would come to the cancer patients of India, at least, sooner than never.

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.