Tag Archives: factor

Mindset Change: Now A Bigger Factor in The Rise And Fall of Pharma Corporations

Posted on by
Reply

Currently, in the pharma industry across the world, almost everyone is talking, thinking, and trying to implement several significant changes – just to be in sync with the changing customer needs and market expectations. As Covid vaccination process gathers momentum with markets gradually opening up, many envisage even much bigger changes. Such changes encompass, medium to long-term strategic thinking process, re-engineering business operations, customer-centric new value creation and value delivery mechanism in the new normal.

Several pharma players have also started expressing it explicitly, even on their websites. One such example is a Novartis communique of January 21, 2021. It says: COVID-19 was a catalyst for change in healthcare during 2020 – an accelerator for digital health. As the virus spread exponentially, the world was forced to work virtually, wherever possible. Digital solutions were needed fast – not just to support remote working, but to keep the very fabric of business, healthcare, education, and essential services in operation. The need to cope with multi-faceted pandemic–triggered challenges of change, prompted the rise of digital health as the only viable option of the time, as it were. In the following months thereafter, it has set some emerging trends for digital innovation to meet global healthcare needs, which will continue through 2021.

The communique underscored: “For Novartis and many other pharmaceutical companies, the challenge was not just to enable employees to continue working, but to ensure that medicines reached patients as needed, and that healthcare professionals (HCPs) had the information they required to support their patients’ questions and needs. It was also essential to make sure that clinical trials remained on schedule and the development pipeline continued.”

Similar mindset was exhibited by many other pharma companies when the chips were down, and Covid vaccines were under development or just had hit the markets. Its impact, got reflected in The Harris Poll Survey of February 2021, which reported a peak positive rating of 62% for the image of the pharma industry – an incredible turnaround from 32% of just the previous year.

Therefore, the question, arises – with Covid vaccination initiatives gathering steam what will major pharma players, both local and global, possibly do? Will they use the pandemic period experience as a springboard – for more innovation of all kinds to reap a sustainable harvest – with an ongoing customer-centric mindset? Or they will try to get back to the old normal – with self-serving interests – till it stings – very hard. This article will explore that area.

What prompts the above questions?

The above questions are prompted by the fact that since then, pharma industry’s image slipped from a peak positive rating of 62% in February as the vaccine rolled out and then dipping to 60% in May and now at 56%, according to The Harris Poll Surveys. Thus, many wonders – ‘is it time to ask whether the halo around COVID-19 vaccine and treatment innovation is gone?

Further, some recent instances on pharma’s reverting to self-serving interests, could also play some role in this regard. Interestingly, notwithstanding pharma’s image going south after achieving a peak of 62%, the ghost of unreasonable drug pricing appears to haunt again.

As an illustration, amid Covid pandemic, the public perception that pharma companies’ business practices changed – from mostly self-serving interest orientated – to meeting customer value and expectations, did not last long. Several actions akin to pre-Covid period, went against the above perception. These include, Covid vaccine prices and Biogen’s $56,000 (Rs.40 lakhs/year in India) price tag for its recently approved Alzheimer drug – Aduhelm that requires monthly infusions with no clear limit on treatment duration. No wonder, Alzheimer’s Association, reportedly, finds this price simply unacceptable,’ as it further “complicates and jeopardizes sustainable access to this treatment” and could further deepen health equity issues.

I reckon, how pharma companies conduct their strategic business operations from now on will possibly reveal the nature of Covid-triggered changes, if at all, within the industry. Industry watchers generally believe the majority will follow the digital transformation path with a new organizational culture, and an agile mindset to always be in sync with stakeholder values and expectations. However, there are also some, who want to mostly revert to the pre-pandemic business culture, practices, and mindset. It will be interesting to know what some top ‘Think Tank’ of the pharma industry envisage.

What some top pharma ‘Think Tank’ envisage: 

Notwithstanding some recent developments as mentioned above, which could be outliers, some top pharma think tanks are quite optimistic about the continuity of Covid triggered positive changes in the industry. For example, in an interview with Pharmaceutical Executive, published on May 19, 2021, a current Amgen Board Member and former CEO of several global pharma majors - Fred Hassan, made some profound statements.

He reiterated, ‘COVID-19 has accelerated the ongoing shift to enterprise-level digital transformation across Fortune 500s.’ Fred further emphasized, “the impact of digital in helping transform the customer experience or to improve efficiencies, is now a bigger factor in the rise and fall of corporations. Astute C-suite executives recognize the opportunity to not only enable, but to also empower their teams to quickly embrace digital as a differentiating tool.” 

A journey – not just a destination:

The above interview further underscored – ‘Digital transformation is a journey — not just a destination.’ The speed of transition to digital must be accompanied by sustainability. It should take all stakeholders on board in the journey of change. The key requirement is to ‘actively energizing the entire organization so that people internalize the digital mindset to help empower their customers, their own company and themselves, as individuals.’

More importantly, ‘Dithering around scaling past the initial digital pilots, is rapidly becoming an unacceptable option,’ as Fred Hassan cautioned. Which is why, while the C-suite needs to actively lead during a digital transformation, they must leverage the commitment of their middle management to motivate front line managers to keep following through with passion, courage, and tenacity. This is because: ‘Digital transformation is a journey – not just a destination.’

Indian pharma suddenly had to ride the wave of digital transformation:

The unprecedented pandemic literally compelled most Indian pharma companies of all sizes, to ride the digital wave in business, mostly for survival – to keep the business operations running. However, with the passage of time, Covid related disruptions started accelerating their journey for digital transformation – at a varying pace, though. This was also reported in the KPMG paper – ‘India’s healthcare sector transformation in the post-COVID-19 era,’ published on February 01, 2021.

The paper also articulated that this unprecedented health crisis “have not just laid bare the myriad challenges and gaps in our health system, but also highlighted the importance of investing in ‘well-being’ at both personal and system levels. It has ushered in an era of digital and technological innovations and advancements that is expected to help communities fulfil those requirements at a much faster pace.”

The pandemic has also accelerated the pace of evolution of ‘Smart Healthcare’ in India. This is also not a destination, but a journey with the digital transformation process, where changing or flexible mindset of the leadership, is the catalyst for change.

‘Smart Healthcare’ is also a digital journey:

As more and more health care customers are entering the digital space, triggered mainly by Covid appropriate behavioral norms, Virtual Healthcare initiatives are also increasing manifold, backed by robust supports from the Government. As a result, several integrated ‘Smart Healthcare’ platforms like Telemedicine, are now, reportedly, being, considered as the “Natural evolution of healthcare in the digital world.” Specifically, in the Indian scenario of low doctor to patient ratio, telemedicine has the potential to be one of the frontline health care value delivery systems, in the “new normal.”

Capturing early signals for such changes in the market trends, and leveraging the same to create a win-win situation for both the company and stakeholders, would necessitate a changing or flexible pharma leadership mindset. The reason being the digital transformation of an organization is an ongoing process with increasing rate of obsolescence of digital tools, platforms, and applications. Let me illustrate this point taking ‘Smart Healthcare’ as an example.

‘A bigger factor in the rise and fall of corporations:’

In today’s digital environment any transformation initiative is a continuous journey, and not a one-time exercise. Digital transformation of an organization – if, as and when pursued for business excellence in the new normal, would demand, at least, two big leadership commitments. These constitute – one, to continuously exceed stakeholder expectations in value delivery, and the other – a changing mindset that always puts customer perceived value on a higher pedestal than a company’s self-perceived value, both for product and services.

For example, for telehealth to carve out its niche as a dominant force in health care after the pandemic ends, will depend on how successfully virtual health care is humanized that will allow physicians and patients to build and maintain trusting relationships. These issues were well deliberated in Harvard Business Review article – ‘3 Ways to Humanize the Virtual Health Care Experience,’ published on March 25, 2021.

The paper concluded by emphasizing, the future rate of adoption of telehealth will ‘heavily depend on its ability to support a trusting relationship between patients and physicians. As provider organizations choose telehealth technologies and digital health companies develop new tools, they must keep the core human needs of both patients and physicians front and center.’

Conclusion:

The above examples clearly point out that any digital transformation process, be it of a corporation or of a system, such as telehealth, is a journey and not a destination. To successfully leverage the benefits of moving into a digital frontier would call for a changing or a flexible mindset of the provider or its leader.

This requirement undoubtedly, therefore, is ‘a bigger factor in the rise and fall of corporations,’ or any digital application, platform, or a system. Which is why, as many believe: ‘pharma still needs to be on its front foot and pushing forward,’ in the new normal. Going back to the traditional practices of the old normal is not an option, any longer.

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.

 

 

Is Pharma Industry A Late Learner, Always?

Posted on by
Reply

Several upcoming concepts in the pharmaceutical industry are becoming buzzwords today. But, most of these were recommended by stalwarts several decades ago. Interestingly, the prevailing scenario is no different, even related to wide-scale adoption of a number of cutting-edge technologies, to squarely face the ongoing challenge of changing market dynamics. Various studies point out that other industries are making transformative use of these – to be on the same page with their customers, much faster.

Pharma is considered to be a late entrant in the digital space, too. It’s still not quite clear to many, the extent by which ‘Digitalization’ is transforming the way pharma industry functions – aiming at unleashing huge opportunities for value creation – from supply chain to manufacturing – right up to creating a unique customer experience. As this subject was well deliberated in the August 2016 article on McKinsey Digital, I am not going to delve into that area today.

Therefore, the question that comes up: Is pharma industry, in general, a late learner – always, to be in sync with its contemporary customers? For exploring this point, I shall focus mainly on four areas of current hypes in the pharma business, namely - ‘patient empowerment’, ‘patient-centricity’, ‘customer experience’ and ‘E-Patients’.

In this article, I shall dwell on this subject, ferreting out some critical recent findings on the relevance of these not so recent concepts in today’s perspective. Let me start by diving deep into the time capsule.

How old are these concepts?

Industry watchers may know that these are not new concepts, in any way. The relevance of ‘patient empowerment’, ‘patient-centricity’, ‘customer experience’ and ‘E-Patients’ in the drug industry has not unfolded today, neither are these new ideas. The American medical doctor - Thomas William ”Tom” Ferguson (July 8, 1943 – April 14, 2006) was an early advocate for ‘patient empowerment’.

Since 1975: “He urged patients to educate themselves and share knowledge with one another and urged doctors to collaborate with patients rather than command them. Predicting the Internet’s potential for disseminating medical information long before it became a familiar conduit, he was an early proponent of its use, terming laymen who did so – ‘E-Patients‘.”  

Technology follows a concept and not vice versa:

With ‘E-Patient’ terminology, Dr. Thomas Ferguson talked about empowered, engaged, equipped and enabled patients. I reckon, even after close to 45 years, most of the drug industry, is still not quite there – ‘Digitalization’ initiatives notwithstanding. This is because, technology follows a concept and not vice versa.

Why it’s so?

I reckon, this is primarily because, many stakeholders often don’t pay much importance to a critical fact, which is: ‘Patient expectations and needs can differ considerably from the aims and objectives of health care providers, at both the policy and delivery levels,’ and also by many drug companies. Still, most of these entities are yet to lap up this concept.

Is reviving focus on ‘Patient Centricity’ a realistic proposition today?

Several studies in this area have concluded, to be accepted by patients, the patient experience should be the key driver for the development of solutions.’ These include, medicines, devices, information, support programs and even digital apps. Among many others, one such study was published on March 28, 2017, in the SAGE Journals, titled, ‘Patient Centricity and Pharmaceutical Companies: Is It Feasible?’

The basic question of its feasibility would prompt: ‘Would this approach help pharma players to make enough profit with the drugs?’ While addressing this query, the researchers put across the following points that need to be seriously reflected on:

  • Profit is necessary. But, how drug companies make and use business ‘profit’ is more important for long-term business sustainability.
  • It requires a clear vision at the top of creating and delivering ‘customer value’ as patients will perceive, followed by a robust assertion of ‘Patient Centricity’ across the business domains.
  • This will help break out of the cycle of “recover costs of R&D – make a profit – invest in new drugs – make more profit.” The new ball game will be – profit through customer satisfaction – invest in new drugs for greater ‘customer value and more customer satisfaction’
  • Such commitments, in turn, will help generate not just reasonable profit, but credibility with external stakeholders – such as, patients, regulators, media, etc. – creating an invaluable reputation for the organization, as a future growth booster.

Since old practices have continued for very long, virtually unchanged, a legacy factor has now crept into the system, mostly as a retarding force.

A legacy issue to overcome:

As the above research article underscores: ‘Historically, the pharmaceutical industry’s role has been to develop the science and medicines for prevention or treatment of disease.’ Whereas, ‘Patient Centricity’ involves patients as stakeholders in this scientific process. It calls for an innovative mindset, whereby ‘the industry is challenged to engage and collaborate with patients when deciding the best course of action.’ This need is now palpable within the industry, at the long last. 

Palpable needs for a new focus on designing ‘healthcare solutions’:

With the shift in the environment around the industry and its stakeholders, including patients, are feeling the need to ferret out some old classic concepts for a new focus in designing various ‘healthcare solutions.’ For this purpose, as the above research article reiterated, a better understanding of ‘patient experience’ at critical points, in the course of the diagnosis and treatment of the disease, would help designing more effective ‘health care solutions’ for better patient outcomes.

The commercial necessity for better patient outcomes, merits ‘Patient Centricity’ at the core of the pharma business model, which, in turn, calls for a shift in the cultural mindset within the pharmaceutical industry. Such a shift would involve, among others:

  • Redefining the core strategy, organizational structure, processes and capabilities to focus on transparency and value creation for the patient.
  • A change from a disease-centered to a patient-centered strategy, and from a product-led to a patient-led development process.
  • Listening to and partnering with patients, and understanding the patient perspective, rather than simply inserting patient views into the established process.

Therefore, ‘patient-centric’ initiatives of any company should begin with the basic question: how can the company make a difference for patients?

The new realization: Compete better to win, neutralizing healthcare consumerism:

To better compete and win even in the midst of evolving healthcare consumerism, instead of adding fuel to it around the world, including India, a new book – ‘Making the Healthcare Shift: The Transformation to Consumer-Centricity,’ brings some contemporary ideas where, again, many old ideas seems to have been tested with a new perspective.

Interestingly, the content of this book is based on over 60 executive interviews with the biggest names in healthcare and a quantitative research study. Some of these names include leading academic institutions, such as, the Mayo Clinic, USCF Medical Center; big drug companies like Pfizer, Lilly and Novartis. The book reveals, while healthcare organizations have recognized the need to change to ‘Patient Centricity, they often don’t know where or how to begin.

To help healthcare organizations reinvent how even traditional pharma players engage with consumers in the new paradigm, the authors identify five shifts that pharma players can make to better compete and win in this evolving landscape of healthcare consumerism. 

Need to ‘reinvent the wheel’, is more than ever before!

To ascertain the above point, I shall paraphrase just a few – ‘Patient-Centric’ and ‘Customer Experience’ related areas of the book along with my own views to help you to come to your own logical conclusion:

  • To provide a holistic disease treatment solution, keeping the patients engaged along the entire journey in the disease treatment process, pharma players should bring ‘consumer experience’ at the core of the business model. As I also deliberated in this blog that: ‘Enhancing End-To-End Customer Experience’ is, therefore, considered by many astute pharma marketers, as a vital ingredient of pharma brand building exercise. In that article, I articulated, such initiatives should cover, all the ‘’touchpoints’ and ‘episodes.’ Where ‘touchpoints’ are spots of contact or interaction and ‘episodes’ focus on end-to-end design of a specific customer-need for an organization. Aligning management and the front line around the customer experience, is critical.
  • As things stand today, the entire journey through the disease diagnosis and treatment process, in the current healthcare ecosystem, remains fragmented. Mostly because, it involves many ‘touchpoints’ and ‘episodes,’ comprising of different health care entities. Providers’ inefficiencies, of various types, encountered by patients at different points of this journey often lead to their frustration, causing an unpleasant ‘customer experience.’ To achieve this objective, by effectively addressing the aforesaid common denominator for all – ‘Patient-Centricity,’ is of paramount importance. This entails, as stated before, integrated measures for listening to and partnering with patients, alongside, placing patients’ well-being at the core of all healthcare business initiatives. From this perspective, ‘patient-centricity’ based on customer insights,represents a holistic approach to provide the disease management solutions.
  • With rapid advancement in medical science, culminating into several breakthrough innovations, the world has stepped into a new era of disease treatment solution. Increasingly, ‘one size fits all’ type of population-centric treatment, is giving away a sizeable space for a new ‘patient-centric’ variety of the same. Moving towards this direction would necessitate pharma players, along with all health care organizations to acquire a deep insight on patients. The acquired insights must be based on in-depth analysis of a robust and contemporary sets of data, including demography, attitude towards health, treatment needs and preferred options available to the targeted audience.

This brings me back to where I started from. Dr. Thomas William ”Tom” Ferguson and maybe several others, as well, had recommended similar approaches over four and a half decade ago. We did not learn it then. But, while fighting against all odds, as the industry has been facing over some time, some companies are feeling the need of learning it now. Better late than never!

Conclusion:

It has been universally accepted that market dynamics keep changing in all industries, may be faster in some than others. Looking back, one can sense similar ongoing changes both within the pharma industry and the business and social and cultural environments outside, especially related to its stakeholders. When faster, proactive changes take place within the industry than outside, it delights the customers. Similarly, faster changes in the outside environment that industry fails to keep pace with – deliberately or otherwise, will invite strong headwind impeding growth of the business and even denting its reputation. Although, the former one is desirable, the latter prevails in most areas of pharma business. A Working Paper of the Harvard Business School wanted to understand ‘How do organizations learn?’ It found, among others:

  • Performance outcomes can be augmented, if one deliberately focuses on learning from experience accumulated in the past.
  • The competitive advantage of firms critically depends on the skills of individual contributors. Hence, the centrality of individual and organizational learning is a critical factor for competitiveness of any organization.

This brings us to the question, what is a learning organization. From many similar definitions of the same, let me quote the following one, as it is apt, simple and old enough for all to have learned: “A Learning Organization is the term given to a company that facilitates the learning of its members and continuously transforms itself.” (M. Pedler, J. Burgoyne and T. Boydell, 1997)

Keeping today’s deliberation in perspective, one may possibly conclude, quick individual learners, including the organizations, can offer better performance outcomes than late learners. As the pharma business is encountering a strong headwind for quite some time, it is up to the readers making out, what type of learner the industry, in general, is, and more importantly, why it is so?

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.

The ‘TINA Factor’: A Hotspot for Patented Drugs

Posted on by
Reply

An article published in a global business magazine on December 5, 2013 mentioned that Marijn Dekkers, the CEO of Bayer AG reportedly has said at the Financial Times Global Pharmaceutical & Biotech Conference held this month that:

“Bayer didn’t develop its cancer drug, Nexavar (sorafenib) for India but for Western Patients that can afford it.”

The head honcho deserves kudos for revealing his mind upfront, while inviting two quick questions, as follows:

  • If that is so, why did Bayer launch Nexavar in India?
  • Did Bayer have any other alternative or choice for not doing so, other than negotiating for a ‘Voluntary License’?

As Bayer already had decided against any ‘Voluntary License’ for Nexavar in India, the simple answer to both the questions is : There Is No Alternative (TINA). And…that’s my ‘TINA Factor’, now a hotspot for patented drugs in India.

I shall dwell on it below, just in a short while.

Bellicose stance for high drug prices and more stringent patent regime:

Everybody acknowledges, beyond even an iota of doubt, that the contribution of the global pharmaceutical industry in the ongoing fight of mankind against diseases of all kinds, is commendable and exemplary.

However, over a period of time, as the low hanging fruits of pharma R&D are in the process of getting all plucked, raw commerce mainly driven by likes of “The Wall Street” quarterly expectations, have started overriding public health considerations involving a large section of the society, across the world, including India.

In this evolving scenario, healthcare has to be extended to almost everybody in the society by the respective Governments in power with strong support from the pharma industry. Instead, to utter dismay of many, the later seems to have opted for a bellicose stance.  Their lobby groups appear to be power playing with all might in the corridors of power, to make the product patent regime of faster growing emerging markets more and more stringent, restricting smooth entry of affordable generic or biosimilar drugs increasingly difficult.

Underlying reasons for Big Pharma’s near obsession to have in place an ever stringent patent regime, defying all public health interest particularly of the developing countries, I reckon, are mainly three-fold:

  • Grant of product patent for any innovation irrespective of triviality
  • To have absolute pricing freedom for patented drugs for unlimited profits
  • To enjoy and extend product monopoly status as long as possible

Probably, to camouflage these intents, the reasons for high prices of patented drugs are attributed to the over-used buzz-words – fostering and re-investing in innovation, which is more often underscored as frightfully expensive.

Fair enough, in that case, let the high cost of R&D be appropriately quantified involving independent  experts and made known to public. It will then not be like a jig saw puzzle for people to understand the real intent or the truth behind high drug prices. Thereafter, practical solutions need be fleshed-out putting the bright brains and minds together to make new medicines affordable to patients, across the world.

Most probably, that is not to happen, unless a legally binding system of disclosure of expenses is made mandatory for R&D, just as the ‘Physician Payment Sunshine Act’ of the United States demands public disclosure of gifts and payments made to doctors by the pharma players and allied businesses.

On the contrary, incessant efforts by vested interests still continue to keep the patented drug prices beyond the reach of common man. The following are just some very recent examples:

Another ‘defiant move’ in drug pricing:

In another recent development, US-FDA on December 6, 2013 approved Sovaldi (sofosbuvir) of Gilead Sciences Inc. This new drug is reported to be a cure for chronic infection with hepatitis C virus, without co-administration of interferon.

According to the report of July 2013 of the World Health Organization (WHO), about 150 million people are chronically infected with hepatitis C virus, and more than 350, 000 people die every year from hepatitis C- related liver diseases, across the world.

Most interestingly, Gilead Sciences have reportedly decided to keep the price of Sovaldi at a staggering US$ 1,000 (Rs. 62,000) -a-day for one tablet to be continued for 12 weeks. Thus the cost of a three month course of treatment with Sovaldi would be a mind boggling sum of US$ 84,000 (Rs.L 5.21), just for one patient.

It is worth noting that the above price/table of Sovaldi, as decided by Gilead Sciences, has started culminating into a storm of protest, almost immediately, even in the United States (US). The biggest drug benefits manager in that country – Express Scripts Holding Co. in a decisive move to drive down spending on the medicines, reportedly plans to start a price war when Sovaldi comes to market next year or early in 2015 wearing a price tag of US$ 1,000 a pill.

Further, on this seemingly defiant pricing strategy, that too for a life saving drug affecting patients belonging to all strata of the society, ‘Doctors Without Borders’ have reportedly commented: “Using patents to block affordable versions of sofosbuvir and pricing this drug out of reach of the most vulnerable groups who need it most is simply putting profits before people’s lives.”

Brewing a fresh initiative for more stringent high drug price regime:

To foist stricter pharmaceutical patent regime, making access to affordable drugs for the world’s poor increasingly challenging, an initiative is reportedly brewing afresh led by the United States (US).

Ministers of Trade from 12 countries initiated a discussion on December 6, 2013 at Singapore to meet the US deadline of forging a deal on the proposed ‘Trans-Pacific-Partnership (TPP)’ before the end of 2013.

These twelve countries – Australia Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, USA and Vietnam, contributing 40 percent of the world economy, are expected to hammer out the TPP deal first, though other countries may hitch on thereafter.

However, after 4 days of intense negotiation, the US-led TPP talks ended on December 10, 2013, without beating into shape any deal. These countries would reportedly meet again on January 2014, in contrast to earlier plan.

The global human right groups like ‘Medicins Sans Frontieres (MSF)’ and ‘Doctors Without Borders’ have reportedly commented, “The ‘Data Protection’ period will prevent drug regulatory agencies in TPP signatory countries from referencing data needed to approve lower-cost generic versions of a protected drug, delaying competition that would lead to cheaper prices”.

In a poll commissioned by ‘Avaaz’ – a global advocacy group, reportedly 62 percent of Americans, 63 percent of Australians, 70 percent of New Zealanders, and of 75 percent Chileans opposed limiting access to generic medicines through the patent proposal in TPP.

Quite expectedly, the powerful US pharma lobby group ‘Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)’ said, “It was necessary for companies to recover investments and conduct further research into new cures”.

Breath of fresh air:

The good news is that some prudent developments are also seen around in the midst of a monopolistic drug pricing scenario, offering a breath of fresh air. Some countries around the world, including an important payor in the Unites States, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) of UK which assesses the value of drugs for NHS use, and even ‘National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC)’ of China, have now started taking note and proactive measures in different ways on monopolistic high drug prices.

A recent report highlighted that ‘National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC)’ of China would examine and regulate the price-related monopolistic practices of six industries operating in the country, including pharmaceuticals and would crack down wherever they find excessively high prices. 

Can India insulate itself from pricing onslaught?

Despite growing global pressure against ‘putting profits before people’s lives’, one may arguably expect more such initiatives spearheaded by Big Pharma to make the patent regime, of especially the emerging markets, more stringent in the years ahead.

That said, ‘The TINA Factor’, which I shall now dwell upon, would probably help reinforcing the protective shield of Indian patent regime against foreseeable assaults with strategies quite similar to as cited above, denying access to new life saving drugs to most of the general population of the country.

‘The TINA Factor’ and three ‘Alternatives’ available to MNCs:

Since enactment of patient-friendly patent laws by the Parliament of India effective January 1, 2005, many global pharma companies and their lobby groups have been continuously expressing immense displeasure and strong anger in many ways for obvious reasons, just as the CEO of Bayer AG did recently.

There are, of course, a few exceptions, such as Sir Andrew Witty, the global CEO of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), who has been publicly expressing balanced views on this subject in several occasions, so far.

Being driven by anger and possibly desperation any MNC may wish to choose one of the following three ‘Alternatives’ available to them:

Alternative 1: Do not apply for the product patent in India at all.

‘The TINA Factor’: In that case the product will be made available in a platter for the generic players to copy.

Alternative 2: Obtaining the relevant patent from the Indian Patent Office (IPO), do not launch the patented product in India.

‘The TINA Factor’: After three years from the date of grant of patent, as per the statute, the said product could become a candidate for CL on the ground that the patented invention has not been worked in India.

Alternative 3: Launch the product only at the international price.

‘The TINA Factor’: If any patented new product is not available to patients at a ‘reasonably affordable price’ or ‘reasonable requirements’ of patients with respect to the patented invention are not satisfied, again according to statutes, interested parties are free to apply for CL to the IPO, following the steps as specified in the Act. Moreover, the Government itself may issue CL in national emergencies or ‘extreme urgency’ for non-commercial use.

Considering the ‘TINA Factor’, it appears, if the new products do not conform to the ‘Indian Patents Act’ and are NOT launched with ‘reasonably affordable prices’ or ‘reasonable requirements’ of patients are NOT met with these new drugs, the possibility of their legal generic entry at much lower prices is rather high in India. CL granted by the IPO for Bayer’s Nexavar to NATCO vindicates this point.

Summing-up effects of the ‘TINA Factor’:

Many would now reckon that the ‘TINA Factor’, being a hotspot for patented drugs in India, has the potential for getting adopted by many other countries in not too distant future. Two of its palpable effects, as felt in the country so far, may be summed-up as follows:

  • It leaves no option to any MNC, other than launching their new products in India, especially after obtaining  relevant patents from the IPO.
  • It also squashes apprehensions of many that discontented Big Pharma would be able stop launching patented new products in India, depriving a large number of patients of the country.

Conclusion:

‘The TINA Factor’, thus created by the lawmakers, is expected to remain undiluted, unless commensurate changes are made in the Indian Patents Act.

Not withstanding the reported anger expressed by the CEO of Bayer AG or recently reported ‘absurd pricing’ of Sovaldi, or even for that matter, fresh attempts that are now being made to cobble together a TPP deal, patented new products would continue to be launched in India, as they will receive marketing approval from the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI).

Any possibility of dilution of the ‘TINA Factor’ seems remote now, though powerful overseas pharma lobby groups are investing heavily for a change to take place in various ways.

It also does not seem likely, at least in the near to mid-term, that India would be a party to its ‘Patents Act’ diluting any ‘Free Trade Agreement’ or remain unmoved with high drug prices like, US$ 1000/tablet for life saving drugs like sofosbuvir, more so, if those are considered essential medicines in the country.

Come 2014, it appears improbable that any new Union Government would be able to garner enough numbers in the Parliament to amend Indian Patents Act, buckling under pressure of powerful lobby groups, directly or indirectly, and daring to ignore public sentiment on this sensitive issue. 

Considering all these, the point to ponder now:

While abhorring pro-patients ‘Patents Act’ of India, can the Big Pharma come out with any viable alternative today for NOT launching their life saving patented new drugs in the country with the ‘TINA Factor’ prevailing?

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.

 

A Force Multiplier: An “Armageddon”: A Contender for Supremacy in the Generic Pharma World

Posted on by
Reply

It is very important for any country to ensure access to most appropriate medicines for the patients as and when they require. In many disease areas such access can be remarkably improved through affordable generic drugs, which offer significant savings in cost for absence of monopolistic situation and intense competitive pressures.

In many countries like, India and China to further augment this process, the Government price control on essential medicines is already in force.

A paper titled, “Generic Medicines: Essential contributors to the long-term health of society” highlights the following facts on such drugs:

• Provide an affordable, gold standard medication for many major illnesses

• Allow access to medicines for a greater proportion of the population

• Stimulate healthy competition with the branded sector

• Deliver savings to national health bills

• Are high quality products

Generic companies also innovate:

The same paper also highlights, though innovation has been traditionally perceived as the domain of the research-based originator companies, generic medicine companies often spend significant sums on innovating and improving formulations, enhancing delivery systems and finding solutions to patient compliance issues.

It also says, the generics medicine industry spent 7 percent of revenues on R&D alone, in 2007 and created 150, 000 jobs only in the EU.

Continuous growth of generic drug industry is critical:

Taking all these factors into consideration, continuous growth of the generic drug industry is critical in ensuring broad access to medicines to the population of any country at an affordable price. Nothing else can achieve this objective.

In the developed countries like, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, UK and even USA, large volume of generic medicines are prescribed. Most of these countries have put in place appropriate regulations that facilitate market entry of generic drugs soon after patent expiry. All of them, by and large, encourage even more prescriptions of generic medicines.

Of course, there are many instances of deliberate attempts to slow down generic entry, which I shall deal with separately at some other time.

Quality perception for generic drugs:

In many countries the general perception of efficacy and safety standards of generic drugs is still not satisfactory. In many occasions, these are reportedly prompted by well orchestrated campaigns by interested private stakeholders in this area.

However, in markets, like the EU, Canada and the USA Governments do take public awareness measures to dispel such doubt. Unfortunately not enough similar initiatives have been taken in India with tangible results. The reason could probably lie in the existence of a powerful branded generic lobby in the country, unlike many other markets of the world.

The market:

A report of Frost & Sullivan titled, “Generic Pharmaceuticals Market – A Global Analysis” stated, the global generic pharmaceuticals market registered a revenue of US$ 135.85 billion in 2010 with a growth rate of 11 percent. The top eight global markets, namely the United States, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Canada, Italy, Spain and Japan account for 80 percent of the total generics market. The United States will continue to remain the largest market in the world for generic pharmaceuticals in value terms.

It is estimated, the global generic drug market will grow to US$ 231.02 billion by 2017 with a CAGR 9.3 percent from 2010. The key growth drivers being:

  • Patent expiration of some blockbuster drugs
  • Entry of more biosimilars
  • High growth of emerging markets
  • Cost containment measures of governments and healthcare service providers in various countries

BRIC Countries strongly defend generic drugs:

Allegation of attacks on the generic industry by the patent holders of various drugs is also heard quite frequently.

It was reported that in a TRIPS Council meeting in mid 2012 held at the World Trade Organization (WTO), India, Brazil and China defended the right of access to cheap generic medicines by poor countries, strongly resisting attempts by the US, Japan and some other developed countries to club counterfeits or copies of patented drugs with fake or spurious ones.

They also argued that infringing intellectual property rights should not be confused with sub-standard products.

Many believe that because of the reported ‘clout of India, China and Brazil’ in the WTO, this attempt may not fructify despite such attempts.

India is surging ahead:      

It is interesting to note that out of top 10 fastest growing generic companies of the world, 4 are of Indian origin namely Glenmark, DRL, Sun Pharma and Taro (owned by Sun Pharma) and 3 definitely are home grown Indian companies, as follows:        

Top 10 Fastest Growing Generic Companies of the World:

No. Company Country Sales US$ Million Growth 2011 (%) Growth 2010 (%)
1. Sagent Pharmaceuticals USA 152 106 153
2. Perrigo USA 620 80 45
3. Nichi-Iko Pharmaceutical Japan 1300 79 25
4. Watson Pharmaceuticals USA 3320 46 38
5. Glenmark India 778 37 17
6. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) India 1480 34 15
7. Taro Pharmaceutical Israel 436 33 11
8. Sun Pharmaceuticals India 1650 29 52
9. Veropharm Russia 156 24 28
10. Polpharma Poland 580 22 20

(Source: FiercePharma)

India the pharmacy of the developing world:

According to a recent report India is now emerging as the ‘Pharmacy of the Developing World’, as it produces a large volume of high-quality, affordable generic medicines.

The study also highlights, “as a result of tough competition from the generic players of India, the price of first-line ARVs dropped from more than US$ 10,000 per person per year in 2000 to around $150 per person per year today. This significant price decrease has helped to facilitate the massive expansion of HIV treatment worldwide: more than 80 percent of the HIV medicines used to treat 6.6 million people in developing countries come from Indian producers, and 90 percent of pediatric HIV medicines are Indian-produced.”

Another study indicates, as a result of phenomenal success of the homegrown pharmaceutical companies:

  • 67 percent of medicines exports from India go to developing countries.
  • Main procurement agencies for developing countries’ health programs purchase their 
medicines in India, where there are quality products at low prices.
  • Approx. 50 percent of the essential medicines that UNICEF distributes in developing countries 
come from India.
  • 75-80 percent of all medicines distributed by the International Dispensary Association (IDA) to 
developing countries are manufactured in India. (IDA is a medical supplier operating on a 
not-for-profit basis for distribution of essential medicines to developing countries.)
  • In Zimbabwe, 75 percent of tenders for medicines for all public sector health facilities come from 
Indian manufacturers,
  • The state procurement agency in Lesotho, NDSO, states it buys nearly 95 percent of all ARVs 
from India.

This situation is going to further improve at a galloping pace in the years ahead with proper encouragement from the Government of India.

India tops the chart for ANDAs:

India, with its rapidly growing homegrown generic players, continues to top the Chart for Abbreviated New Drugs Applications (ANDAs) with USFDA by increasing its share year after year, as follows:

Year

Global

India

India’s Share %

2007

492

133

24.1

2008

483

143

27.9

2009

419

132

31.3

2010

419

142

34.0

2011

431

144

33.4

2012

476

178

37.4

Source: Pharmabiz, January 7, 2013 / US FDA

India tops the Chart in DMFs also:

Similarly, India continues to top the Chart with its Drug Master Files (DMF) for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs), as follows:

No. Countries Filing Type II DMF
 1. India 2759
 2. USA 1323
 3. China 870
 4. Italy 644
 5. Japan 270
 6. Spain 268
 7. Germany 266
 8. France 170
 9. Israel 170
 10. Switzerland 136

Source: Pharma Times, August 2012

Moreover, domestic pharmaceutical companies have now between themselves, around 175 USFDA and approximately 90 UK-MHRA approved manufacturing units, to cater to the needs of high quality and affordable pharma products across the world. 

India not loosing its R&D Focus:

Discovery of new drugs being the bedrock for the pharmaceutical industry, domestic Indian companies are also not loosing focus on R&D activities. The New Chemical Entity (NCE) pipeline of the homegrown companies as on 2012 is as follows:

Piramal Healthcare 23
Suven Life Sciences 14
Zydus Cadila 11
Glenmark 8
Biocon 7
Torrent Pharma 6
Sun Pharma 5
Wockhardt 5
Ranbaxy 2
Dr Reddy’s Lab 2
Others 5

Source: Citeline Intelligence Services: Pharma R&D Annual Review 2013

Is the “west pressurizing India to change tack?”

In an interesting article published in ‘The Guardian’, the author observed that the western Pharmaceutical companies are putting health of world’s poor at risk. It commented that India makes cheap medicines for poor people around the world, but the EU, pharmaceutical firms and now the US are pressuring the ‘pharmacy of the developing world’ to change track. The same sentiment was echoed in another article published in Pharma Times.

However, the experts do feel that the Government of India, mostly due to intense public pressure, is well prepared to address any such situation, come what may. Thus, despite any retarding forces coming into play, the incessant march of the home grown pharmaceutical companies in search of excellence, especially in this space, is expected to continue even at a brisker pace.

The triggering factor:

Experts opine that the reason for excellence of the domestic Indian pharmaceutical industry, especially in the generic pharma landscape, is due to the amendment of the Indian Patents Act in 1970 allowing only process patents for drugs and pharmaceuticals.

The Government of India reportedly had taken such a path-breaking decision in the 70’s to lay the foundation of a vibrant domestic pharmaceutical industry capable of manufacturing low cost and high quality modern medicines for the health security of the country leveraging latest technology, including IT.

This decision was also directed towards creation of ‘drug security’ for the country as in the 70’s India was very heavily dependent on drug imports and the domestic pharmaceutical industry was virtually non-existent. 

Conclusion:

Paying kudos to the pharmaceutical ‘Crown Jewels’ of India, many industry watchers feel that the global pharma players are now keener than ever before to work with the domestic pharma industry, in various areas of business. This augurs well for all, as it will help creating a win-win situation to add further momentum to the growth of the pharmaceutical industry of India.

Be that as it may, taken in entirety and strengthened by its well-balanced patent laws, India  will continue to have a significant force multiplier effect to emerge as a global force to reckon with, particularly in this important space.

In tandem, with other significant cutting edges, as mentioned above, India is now well poised to be an “armageddon” – a contender of supremacy as a “pharmacy of the developing economies” despite selective allegations and  detrimental efforts by some vested interests.

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.

 

 

The R&D Factor: “One of the Great Myths of the Industry”

Posted on by
Reply

Yes, that is what the global CEO of one of the Pharmaceutical giants of the world commented in a very recent interview with Reuters. Adding further to this comment he said, “US $1 billion price tag for R&D was an average figure that includes money spent on drugs that ultimately fail… If you stop failing so often, you massively reduce the cost of drug development  … It’s entirely achievable.”

Therefore, he concluded his interview by saying that the pharmaceutical industry should be able to charge much less for new drugs by passing on efficiencies in R&D to the customers.

A vindication:

The above comment does not seem to be a one off remark. A recent study on R&D productivity of 12 top pharmaceutical companies of the world by Deloitte and Thomson Reuters highlighted that the average cost of developing a new medicine is now US$ 1.1 billion with the most successful company in the group studied incurred an average cost of just US$ 315 million, while at the other extreme, another company spent US$ 2.8 billion.

How much of it then covers the cost of failures and who pays for such inefficiencies?

Some experts have gone even further:

Some experts in this area have gone even further arguing that pharmaceutical R&D expenses are over stated and the real costs are much less.

An article titled “Demythologizing the high costs of pharmaceutical research”, published by the London School of Economics and Political Science in 2011 indicates that the total cost from the discovery and development stages of a new drug to its market launch was around US$ 802 million in the year 2000. This was worked out in 2003 by the ‘Tuft Center for the Study of Drug Development’ in Boston, USA.

However, in 2006 this figure increased by 64 per cent to US$ 1.32 billion, as reported by a large overseas pharmaceutical industry association.

The authors of the above article also mentioned that the following factors were not considered while working out the 2006 figure of US$ 1.32 billion:

▪    The tax exemptions that the companies avail for investing in R&D.

▪   Tax write-offs amount to taxpayers’ contributing almost 40% of the R&D cost.

▪   The cost of basic research should not have been included, as these are mostly         undertaken by public funded universities or laboratories.

The article commented that ‘half the R&D costs are inflated estimates of profits that companies could have made if they had invested in the stock market instead of R&D and include exaggerated expenses on clinical trials’.

“High R&D costs have been the industry’s excuses for charging high prices”:

In the same article the authors strongly commented as follows:

“Pharmaceutical companies have a strong vested interest in maximizing figures for R&D as high research and development costs have been the industry’s excuse for charging high prices. It has also helped generating political capital worth billions in tax concessions and price protection in the form of increasing patent terms and extending data exclusivity.”

The study concludes by highlighting that “the real R&D cost for a drug borne by a pharmaceutical company is probably about US$ 60 million.”

 Another perspective to the “R&D Factor”:

A book titled “Pharmaceutical R&D: Costs, Risks, and Rewards”, published by the government of USA gives another perspective to the “R&D Factor”. It articulates that the three most important components of R&D investments are:

  • Money
  • Time
  • Risk

Money is just one component of investment, along with a long duration of time, to reap benefits of success, which is intertwined with a very high risk of failure. The investors in the pharmaceutical R&D projects not only take into account how much investment is required for the project against expected financial returns, but also the timing of inflow and outflow of fund with associated risks.  It is thus quite understandable that longer is the wait for the investors to get their real return, greater will be their expectations for the same.

This publication also highlights that the cost of bringing a new drug from ‘mind to market’ depends on the quality and sophistication of science and technology involved in a particular R&D process together with associated investment requirements for the same.

In addition, regulatory demand to get marketing approval of a complex molecule for various serious disease types is also getting more and more stringent, significantly increasing their cost of clinical development in tandem. All these factors when taken together, the authors argue, make the cost of R&D not only very high, but unpredictable too.

Thus to summarize from the above study, high pharmaceutical R&D costs involve:

  • Sophisticated science and technology dependent high up-front financial investments
  • A long and indefinite period of negative cash flow
  • High tangible and intangible costs for acquiring technology with rapid trend of obsolescence
  • High risk of failure at any stage of product development

Even reengineered R&D model may not be sustainable:

Many research scientists have already highlighted that sharp focus in some critical areas may help containing the R&D expenditure to a considerable extent and also would help avoiding the cost of failures significantly. The savings thus made, in turn, can fund a larger number of R&D projects.

The areas identified are as follows:

  • Early stage identification of unviable new molecules and jettisoning them quickly.
  • Newer cost efficient R&D models.
  • Significant reduction in drug development time. 

Unfortunately, sustainability of the above model too still remains in the realm of a wishful thinking and raises a serious question mark to many for various other reasons.

Should Pharmaceutical R&D move away from its traditional models?

Thus the critical point to ponder today, should the Pharmaceutical R&D now move from its traditional comfort zone of expensive one company initiative to a much less charted frontier of sharing drug discovery involving many players? If this overall approach gains acceptance sooner by all concerned, it could lead to increase in R&D productivity significantly at a much lesser cost, benefiting the patients community at large.

Finding right pathway in this direction is more important today than ever before, as the R&D productivity of the global pharmaceutical industry, in general, keeps going south and that too at a faster pace, prompting major cuts in the absolute R&D expenditure by many, as compared to the previous year.

A global R&D spend comparison (2011 and 12):

R&D expenditures in absolute terms of the following global companies in 2011 and 2012, without drawing any relationship to their respective R&D productivity, were reportedly as follows:

Company

2012

US$ Bn.

2011

US$ Bn.

% Change

% of Sale
Roche

10.10

8.81

13.7

21.0
Novartis

9.33

9.58

(3.0)

16.4
Merck

8.16

8.46

(4.0)

17.0
Pfizer

7.90

9.10

(13.0)

13.3
J&J

7.66

7.54

1.5

11.6
Sanofi

6.40

6.24

2.5

14.1
GSK

5.95

6.01

(1.0)

15.0
Eli Lilly

5.30

5.00

5.0

23.4
AstraZeneca

5.24

5.52

(5.0)

18.8
Abbott Labs

4.32

4.12

4.7

10.8
Total

70.36

70.38

 

 

Source: Fierce Biotech, March 18, 2013

This particular table points out that five out of the reported ten companies had to spend less towards R&D in 2012 as compared to 2011 and four out of the remaining five players were able to increase their R&D spend just marginally.

Thus the same question comes at the top of mind yet again: is the current pharmaceutical R&D model sustainable and working with optimal productivity and cost efficiency for  the benefits of patients?

Towards greater sustainability of the R&D model: 

A July 2010 study of Frost & Sullivan reports, “Open source innovation increasingly being used to promote innovation in the drug discovery process and boost bottom-line”.

It underscores the urgent need for the global pharmaceutical companies to respond to the challenges of high cost and low productivity in their respective R&D initiatives, in general.

The ‘Open Innovation’ model assumes even greater importance today, as we have noted above, to avoid  huge costs of R&D failures, which are eventually passed on to the patients through the drug pricing mechanism.

‘Open Innovation’ model, as they proposed, will be most appropriate to even promote highly innovative approaches in the drug discovery process bringing many brilliant scientific minds together from across the world.

The key objective of ‘Open Innovation’ in pharmaceuticals is, therefore, to encourage drug discovery initiatives at a much lesser cost, especially for non-infectious chronic diseases or the dreaded ailments like Cancer, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer, Multiple Sclerosis, including many neglected diseases of the developing countries, making innovative drugs affordable even to the marginalized section of the society.  

“Open Innovation” is very successful in IT industry:

The concept of ‘Open Innovation’ is being quite successfully used in the Information Technology (IT) industry since nearly three decades across the world, including India. Web Technology, Linux Operating System (OS) and even the modern day ‘Android’ are excellent examples of commercially successful ‘Open innovation’ model in IT,

In the sphere of Biotechnology ‘Human Genome Sequencing’ is another remarkable outcome of such type of R&D model. Therefore, why not a similar model be actively pursued in a much larger scale to discover newer and innovative drugs at a much lesser cost for greater access to patients?

Issues involved:

In the evolving process of ‘Open Innovation’ in pharma there are some issues to be addressed and at the same time some loose knots to be tightened to make the process increasingly more user friendly and robust. Many experts feel that the key issues for the ‘Open Innovation’ model are as follows:

▪   Who will fund the project and how much?

▪   Who will lead the project?

▪   Who will coordinate the project and find talents?

▪   Who will take it through clinical development and regulatory approval process?

That said, all these issues do not seem to be insurmountable problems at all to add greater speed and efficiency to the process, as the saying goes, ‘where there is a will, there is a way’.

Conclusion: 

Having deliberated on this issue as above, I reckon, there is a dire need to make the process of offering innovative drugs at affordable prices to the patients sustainable over a long period of time, for the sake of all.

This can happen only when there will be a desire to step into the uncharted frontier, coming out of much beaten and a high cost tract of R&D, especially after having picked-up the low hanging fruits. Dove tailing the passion for business excellence with the patients’ interest, dispassionately, will then be the name of the game.

As the Reuters article quoting the CEO of a global pharma major points out, in addition to improvements in research, increasing global demand for medicines and the explosion in the volume of products sold in emerging markets should also contribute to lower unit costs of the innovative drugs ensuring their greater access to patients.

This process, in turn, will help fostering a win-win situation for all stakeholders, exploding “one of the great myths of the industry” – The ‘R&D Factor’.

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.