Tag Archives: GSK

Effective Change Management – The Magic Wand For Business Success And Sustainability

Posted on by
Reply

Change – just as it’s an integral part of our life, so is for any business, including pharmaceutical or healthcare. Interestingly, the phase of transition of such changes isn’t always slow and gradual. In many cases, especially for business, or for a lifestyle too, these transitions could also be faster and disruptive.

The speed of many such changes is now driven by rapidly evolving technology. Or these could often be triggered by some unanticipated event, like the Covid-19 pandemic that we all experienced, very recently. Such changes may impact people working in different functions, in different ways. Which is why, organizations need to be all-time ready, with a robust process in place – known as Change Management.

In this article, I shall focus on the relevance of putting in place a well-validated system driven Change Management process within, especially, the Indian pharmaceutical organizations. Let me start with my understanding on what is the Change Management, so that all of us be on the same page in this regard. 

To be on the same page on what is Change Management:

There are several definitions of the change management process expressed differently, but it’s core concept remains unchanged. One such illustration comes from The TechTarget network. It says:“Change management is a systematic approach to dealing with the transition or transformation of an organization’s goals, processes, or technologies. The purpose of change management is to implement strategies for effecting change, controlling change, and helping people to adapt to change.”

Why many pharma majors are considering it now, more than ever before:

Being amid a technological revolution, encompassing almost all aspects of life and then in the post-pandemic area, change is being expected as a way of life and business, more than ever in the past. Although pharma industry a late learner - and is also traditionally late to change – these can’t be now pushed to the back burner, any longer, as was happening in the pre-pandemic era.

‘Change Management’ can’t be pushed to the back burner, any longer:

This process has now attracted a sense of urgency for many pharma players, as we read and look around. Several big companies have already started addressing the leadership challenges to manage and leverage the evolving changes, as I wrote in my article of October 3, 2022, in this blog.

To be in sync with both customers and employee expectations on an ongoing basis, the change management process in an organization has assumed a priority. User friendly state of the art technology is facilitating to effectively address the growing intricacies of today’s field staff role by infusing leadership mindset change in the organizational culture. Emphasizing this point in my article on July 19, 2021, I underscored that such change should necessarily reflect the company’s vision for the future, unambiguously.

Most companies have changed over a period of time in varying degree:

Most companies have changed over a period of time. Nonetheless, today’s need, pace and the process of change demand a data science based customized approach. The good news is several pharma majors have also started feeling that they require not just to change with time, but also need to put more data science based cerebral input to fathom why and how it changed to be more effective in the future.

An insightful understanding is essential to put in place and kick start a right change management process. To give a sense of it, let me cite a contemporary example of one of the successful global pharma majors – GSK. This case study was prepared by the Project Management Institute.

Achievement of a key milestone could make all the difference:

When GSK initiated this process in 2009, the organization realized that an important milestone in the implementation of the company’s change initiative must be to gain the trust and belief of leadership—many of whom were neutral or cynical about it.

To achieve this goal a custom made ‘Accelerating Delivery and Performance (ADP) program; was found to be quite effective for the company. It delivered both hard business benefits as well as softer organizational development benefits. This approach allowed the team to gain the attention of those leaders who wanted both.

Five principles formed the bedrock of the ADP approach:

The following ADP principles are time-tested, contemporary, and several of these were practiced by GSK in their change management process when it started in 2009.

  • Changes should begin with the initiator of change and focusing on greater customer satisfaction.
  • Active support of all stakeholders in the process of change is critical.
  • Include all staff who will be impacted by the change – while defining, explaining, and ensuring accountability and continuously measuring the time bound shared goals, especially the business and financial ones.
  • Make sure they all share ownership for the outcome of change, through seamless teamwork.
  • Make a pilot study before pan organization implementation.

The change management process continues:

That the change management process needs to be ongoing even for successful drug majors – such as GSK, is particularly evident from their Press Release on June 23, 2021.

The communique giving details of the organization’s strategic and other transformation pathways, also highlighted, “New GSK to deliver step-change in growth and performance over the next ten years driven by high-quality Vaccines and Specialty Medicines portfolio and late-stage pipeline.” 

Specific areas of change, as the pandemic wanes:

There are several studies in this area, such as the one published in the Growth Faculty Learn, published on February 07, 2023. Let me paraphrase its summary as follows:

  • Although the pace of change in different businesses may vary but will certainly keep changing. The leaders should, therefore, act proactively to lead their teams through a well validated change management process to gain a competitive edge.
  • Full preparedness for the change and garnering change management skills before the process begins are critical.
  • Advance planning for employee wellbeing, well structured individual and collective communication strategy, deciding on specifics of a hybrid work culture – all based on data-science, are of great importance.
  • To ensure the effectiveness of the change management process a positive workplace environment is a must, which will stand on five pillars - Trustworthiness, Empathy, Genuineness, Self-awareness, and a Learning mindset.

Thus, it’s high time for all to realize that the pharma business ball game is now changing fast for all, creating an urgent need to focus on the critical areas of change.

Conclusion:

It now boils down to an important point, which was also echoed in an article on this area published in the Pharma IQ on November 23, 2022. It underscored just as any living being keeps moving on the pathway of change, pharma and healthcare industry should proactively follow a similar path.

External environmental factors would play a catalytic role to accelerate the speed of change. These include fast evolving consumer friendly digital applications and health apps - newer, better, and more targeted drugs and treatment processes, or even unprecedented disruptions of lives and livelihoods, just what we all have recently experienced.

A study published in the Pharma Marketing Network on October 27, 2021, also reiterated that the main goal of any change management approach is to foster support of all concerned that leads to good outcomes within an organization. It found that an effective way to implement a change is by engaging and inspiring employees to adopt new (and improved) ways of working.

Against the above backdrop, putting a structured change management process in place by Indian pharma players, I reckon, is now essential. This approach seems to be a Magic Wand, as it were, for ongoing business success and sustainability in today’s rapidly evolving paradigm.

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.

 

Winning By Creating A Strong Pharma ‘Brand Identity’

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

Some critical ingredients of brand identity:

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

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

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

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

Increasing importance of stronger pharma ‘brand identity’:

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

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

Studies vindicate this point:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me start with GSK:

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

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

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

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

Coming to Sanofi:

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

 

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A brief recap:

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

The relevance of focusing on ‘core competencies’:

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

What constitutes core competencies to gain strategic strength?

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

Broad examples – from pharma perspective:

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

Examples of shifting focus on core competencies:

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

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

There were some valid reasons, though:

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

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

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

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

  • The first one is Daiichi Sankyo of Japan’s acquisition of India’s generic drug major of that time – Ranbaxy, in June 2008. The parent company claims: “We provide innovative products and services in more than 20 countries around the world. With more than 100 years of scientific expertise, our company draws upon a rich legacy of innovation and a robust pipeline of promising new medicines to help patients.” It is much known today, what happened to this acquisition, thereafter, for various reasons, including faulty pre-acquisition due diligence. However, later on, the domestic pharma leader – Sun Pharma, acquired Ranbaxy. Nonetheless, at least from Daiichi Sankyo’s narrative, its areas of core competencies, appear closer to any R&D-based drug company.
  • The second example is US-based Abbott Laboratories acquisition of domestic formulations business of Primal Heath care in India in May 2010. Like Daiichi Sankyo, this acquisition was also a part of Abbott’s strategy to enter into ‘generic drug business’ -dominated emerging markets. Abbott, at that time, apparently decided to expand its strategic focus beyond its core competencies in business, primarily of patented products. However, by the end of 2012, the company separated into two leading healthcare companies. Abbott became a diversified medical products company. The other one – a totally separate company was formed, with the name – AbbVie, as a new researched-based global biopharmaceutical organization. AbbVie now operates in India, as well – with erstwhile Abbott’s innovative brands. In this case, by an innovative restructuring of the parent organization, Abbott brought back its sharp focus on core competencies of both the companies with both doing well in India.
  • The third example is a recent move of reverting to the original focus of core competencies, when moving beyond these did not yield results. In that sense, this example is different from the second one. On November 16, 2020, Pfizer also announced the creation of ‘the new Pfizer’, as it reverted to its original core competencies of “developing breakthrough treatments and delivering innovative, life-changing medicines to patients around the world.” On that day, Pfizer completed transaction to spin off its Upjohn generic drug business and combined it with Mylan to create a new entity – Viatris Inc. Earlier, the company had sold its veterinary business, a baby formula unit and its consumer products division as part of a deal with GSK – for similar reasons. Earlier, the company’s moving beyond its core competencies to pluck low hanging fruits of generic drug business, did not yield dividend, as Pfizer’s profit in the generic drug sector, reportedly, had gone South.

Conclusion:

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray      

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

 

Changing – The Key Differentiator To Boost Pharma Market Share

Posted on by
Reply

Health problems, affecting populations of any country, are many. So are the issues related to the delivery of effective health care solution, that most patients would consider satisfying and meaningful. From this perspective, prevention, treatment and effectively managing any disease is basically a problem-solving situation, for all, as we see around.

Interestingly, an ailment, per se, may not necessarily be the only problem that needs to be solved by a doctor, hospital or a pharma company with its drugs. Other associated factors, playing a key role in the process of patients’ search for a meaningful solution – could often post to be tougher barriers in finding the solution. Therefore, patients’ problem during any disease treatment process, is much more than the disease or availability of required drugs.

Consequently, it is very important for all, especially the pharma marketers, to properly understand what these specific influencing factors are, for each patient-groups or types, if not each patient. Obviously, it would call for generation of relevant data to precisely define the problem, or a set of problems, as the patients feel and envisage. Conversely, these problems should not be defined by the company, based mostly on gut feel, just as it’s so difficult to fathom how another person would feel in a distressing situation. Thus, the need to chart a strategic roadmap to provide a solution to those problems will arise only thereafter.

In pharma context, there are several critical elements in this problem-solving process. However, in this article, I shall focus only on two areas. As these could provide a cutting edge, if used in creative ways by drug manufacturers in arresting patients’ and other stakeholders’ attention on this crucial process.

Three critical elements to the problem-solving process:

Among several others, I reckon, the following three elements would play critical roles in the problem-solving process that is specific to the pharma industry:

  • The mindset to follow the problem-solving approach with all sincerity.
  • Communicate the problem-solving process in a creative way to patients and others.
  • Walk the talk, earning patients’ delight and enhancing the corporate reputation.

Since, the third element, although very important, is involved with the strategic roadmap of the organization, let me discuss here the first two elements to justify the need for this stratagem.

The key differentiators are changing:

A clear shift is underway that will influence what drug will be prescribed and the treatment process that individual patients would prefer.

Not so long ago, and to a large extent even today, one of the key differentiators to sell high price patented products used to be the narrative of ‘billions of dollars’ of investments that go behind time-intensive and high-risk R&D. Nevertheless, this age-old recital now finds lesser and lesser number of takers, largely within patient groups.

Alongside, run several other product-centric differentiators, such as claims and counterclaims on technological and clinical superiority, or how a new drug prolongs life of some cancer patients by a few months over other drugs. These are the old workhorse of differentiators, which are just not enough to increase brand market share, in today’s fast-changing environment.

Brand differentiating factors should reach much beyond the product:

As more patients are getting increasingly interested in their personal health interests and rights, the differentiating factors should reach much beyond products. Some drug companies are already sensing that more patients have started looking for a desired and effective solution, whenever they face a health-related problem. Accordingly, the ability of a pharma player to provide a custom-made solution, as it were, to patients, is emerging as a crucial differentiating factor. This has immense potential to boost the brand market share faster.

Let me underscore, yet again, that this change is surfacing due to changing demands of patients in this area. Thus, soon pharma companies would require shifting their focus from product-centric brand differentiation to patient-centric ones, with problem-solving offerings for patients in creative ways.

Communicate the problem-solving offerings in creative ways to patients:

That the core purpose of pharma business is to prevent, cure or effectively manage illness, is known to many. However, that doesn’t explain one critical parameter that patients now value most. This is, how a drug company provides effective solution to specific health problems of individuals – making the company’s product and services most meaningful to him or her.

Encouragingly, some top pharma advertising companies dealing with pharma, healthcare and wellness products, have started advising so, to their respective clients, as reported by Fierce Pharma on June 17, 2019.

One such ad agency honcho said: “The reality is that pharma and health are closer to doing good anyway, that’s just part of what they do.  Looking for opportunities to serve the patient in a creative way is what we need to do in pharma as well, not just, ‘let’s go and sell this drug.’ Admitting the current issues with most pharma players, he further articulated: “But there’s a huge trust gap because people think pharma companies are just out to make money. The more they can do that supports their customer base, which is patients, the more quickly we’ll erode that.”

As reported in the same article, this advice was given to the pharma industry at the Cannes Pharma Lions Awards function on June 17, 2019. It is one of those top award functions, where one gets to know about the best creative communications of pharma and health care companies, designed to facilitate understanding and awareness on various health problem-solving processes for patients.

An interesting platform to know about pharma’s problem-solving offerings:

One of the well-respected platforms where one can witness creative and innovative communications in the pharma industry, is during Cannes Pharma Lions Awards. This ‘is considered the largest gathering of the advertising and thecreative communications industry. The five-day festival, incorporating the awarding of the Lions awards, is held yearly at the Palais des Festivals et des Congrès in Cannes, France.’

New age creative pharma communication, bringing science and innovation to life, compete in the Pharma Lions award functions. These facilitate not only disease awareness – both mitigation or management, diagnosis and patient’s-need-based prescriptions, but also add value while engaging with healthcare professional and patients, more effectively.

Some of the entries vindicate that creativity in pharma communications has started moving ahead and faster than expected, with special focus on patients’ problem-solving. As an illustration, let me cite the example of top Pharma Lions Winner at Cannes 2019.

GlaxoSmithKline GSK) and its ad agency McCann Health picked up this coveted award in pharma advertising with a mobile application called Breath of Life. This is a diagnostic tool for COPD developed for GSKand is aimed at raising awareness and increasing diagnoses of the disease in China. COPD affects an estimated 100m adults in China, but only around 7 percent is properly diagnosed, as the report highlights.

Now, an example from the wellness area:

This specific approach for a Vitamin D fortified dairy product, is also equally innovative, as quoted in the above Fierce Pharma article. Many may be aware that Vitamin D deficiency is not uncommon in India – 80 percent of children in Delhi, reportedly, suffer from this deficiency. The manufacturing company launched its campaign in schools to move the traditional, outdoor morning assembly to noon, when brief sun exposure could have a big effect on vitamin D levels. The campaign invited schools to a launch event, providing a solution to the problem of Vitamin D deficiency in children. The idea clicked with excellent media coverage.

As the ad agency said: “We didn’t make a TV commercial or run print ads. We looked at a problem and how we could solve it and showed that the brand cares about kids.” Nevertheless, he added, make no mistake, it was also an ad, which made parents want to buy the brand.

India and Cannes Lions Awards in health and pharma categories:

The good news is, Indian companies are also participating to showcase their creative communication skills, in problem-solving areas of health, wellness and pharma domain. Although, one doesn’t find the names of any large domestic pharma players in the list,  India had put up a good show by bagging a total of four awards, including a gold, two silvers and a bronze in the health and pharma categories on Day 1 of the Cannes International Festival of Creativity, in 2018.

In the years ahead, one hopes that Indian drug manufacturers will show greater interest in this area, to sharpen their critical differentiating tool in disease awareness, brand marketing focused on problem-solving for patients, who search for an appropriate solution while addressing a disease condition.

Is pharma in search of a different approach?

Instances, such as, Cannes Pharma Lions Award, indicate that an increasing number of pharma players have, at least, started recognizing that old ways of differentiating brands, would no longer fetch desired outcomes, as patients’ mindsets are changing – fast. Patients’ outlook for prevention, treatment and managing chronic ailments are also changing – empowered by a plethora of unlimited free information – as and when they require.

Accordingly, drug companies who are partnering with creative pharma ad agencies are being persuaded more to look for a radically different approach to be on the same page with their customers. It also requires the top management mindset to be in sync with this fundamental change, inviting full commitment from all. The new communication package, then becomes a fine blend of top-class creative inputs and modern technology platforms for delivery. The core purpose is to effectively connect with patients, doctors, hospitals and governments, being an integral part of their problem-solving process in health care.

Conclusion:

The article titled, ‘Solving Problems Is More Important Than Selling Your Differentiators,’ published in Forbes on June 14, 2018, highlighted a very important point. It wrote, if a company keeps zeroing in on its traditional brand differentiator, as discussed above, the business is likely to miss out on potential new customers and the revenue they could bring with them.It then elaborated: ‘The real trick to getting noticed comes down to shifting your focus. It’s not about you. And it’s definitely not about you versus them. It’s all about solving problems and evoking the right emotions.’

The short list of Cannes Pharma Lions Awards, signals that this process has just begun, but yet to gain a critical mass within the industry. In this area, as yet another head honcho puts it: “Given the shortlist for the Innovation Lions, you can already see a trend where agencies have focused on making work that impacts patient lives on a day-to-day basis, through more meaningful use of technology for practical and life-changing purposes.”

Thus, it is important for new age pharma marketers to note that their business environment is changing – faster than ever before. The traditional brand differentiators, however much honed, may not fetch desired increase in the market share, in the future.

The new crucial differentiator in this area, isthe ability of a pharma player to conceive, design, provide and effectively communicate, virtually a custom-made disease treatment solution to patients. Equally important is the skill to communicate this ‘problem-solving process’ to the target audience in creative ways, for top of mind recall, at least, the company’s name. In turn, it would also facilitate the prescriber choosing a company’s brand, that rings a bell to the patient. And that’s the new way for pharma marketers to boost their brand market share, faster.

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.

 

Trees Die From The Top: Apt For Pharma Leadership Too?

Posted on by
Reply

The Management Guru of all-time – Peter F. Drucker once said: “The spirit of an organization is created from the top… If an organization is great in spirit, it is because the spirit of its top people is great.” As “Trees die from the top”, no one should ever become a strategist unless he or she is willing to have his or her character serve as a model for subordinates – Drucker emphasized.

Decades after this assertion from Drucker, meant for management practitioners, it is discernible even today how irrefutable these axioms are.  In the contemporary times, as well, particularly when reality bites a company hard, being caught on the wrong side of ‘generally acceptable’ ethics, value and compliance standards.

While zeroing in to pharma, soundbites usually generated at that time, especially from the top echelon of the management, seem to hint that employees down the rung are responsible for such misdeeds, besides, of course, the legacy factor.

At this moment of truth, it is also not unusual for them to romancing the utopia, as it were. Senior management comes out with several ideas, which are squeaky clean in terms of optics. Some of them also talk about introducing behavior metric on ethics and values in employee performance appraisal before releasing any performance related pay out. In this article, I shall focus on this leadership issue in view of some latest developments in this area.

The latest developments:  

Let me now come straight to the latest developments in this area, as I see around.

“Novartis links bonuses to ethics in bid to rebuild reputation” – was a headline of Reuters on September 18, 2018. It reported: “Swiss drug maker Novartis has revealed its employees only get a bonus if they meet or exceed expectations for ethical behavior as it seeks to address past shortcomings that have damaged its reputation.”

Some interesting points stand out from this report on the ownership of such alleged malpractices. These reconfirm that the reasons for the same, including the repeated allegations of such nature, are being passed on to others by the top management. For example:

  • To past practices or the legacy factor, even if the current CEO has been a part of that corporate environment, since long.
  • To employees responsible down the line, and a new system is being adopted to address the issue.

In this case, as Reuters reports: “Chief Executive Vas Narasimhan has made strengthening the Swiss drug maker’s ethics culture a priority after costly bribery scandals or legal settlements in South Korea, China and the United States.”

Interestingly, as reported by the media, “the company was also this year embroiled in a political controversy over payments it made to U.S. President Donald Trump’s ex-attorney.”  Previously, even in the clinical trial area, Japanese authorities, reportedly “uncovered serious misconduct during a trial of its leukemia drug, Tasigna.”

As I said above, in response to such incidents, the General Counsel of Novartis, reportedly expressed: “This allows us to look at the behavior metric before any money leaves Novartis and catch potential misconduct before there is any risk to our reputation.” The official further added, “You can expect us to continue focusing on resolving the legacy issues that we read about in the press, ensuring we address any remaining underlying behaviors.”

Such steps not taken for the first time by a pharma company: 

EvenGlaxoSmithKline tried something akin in the past.

“GSK scraps sales rep targets after scandal,” was the headline of December 17, 2013 edition of the Financial Times. It reported: “GlaxoSmithKline is to scrap individual sales targets for its commercial staff as it seeks to repair its image and reform working practices in the wake of allegations in China that its staff paid officials up to $500m in bribes. The move comes amid concerns over aggressive marketing across the pharmaceutical industry and follows a series of damaging regulatory probes leading to a record $ 3bn fine in the US last year.”

However, later on GlaxoSmithKline, reportedly “altered the plan when its sales began to suffer in the world’s largest market.”

Where is the real issue lying?

As“PwC‘s 21st CEO Survey: Preparing for disruption” found, 71 percent of CEOs surveyed said that their organizations face greater pressure to deliver business results in less time.

There isn’t an iota of doubt, I reckon, that pharma CEOs are under constant performance pressure from the investors and other stakeholders to deliver expected financial results. This makes them keep their eyes primarily glued on to the grindstone for churning out expected profits from the business. This also means that they expect management efforts to be generally directed to deliver ‘values’ at the least possible cost.

On the other hand, the same PwC survey findings reiterated that with rising drug costs, the demand for the drug companies to demonstrate the treatment efficacy, is increasing by manifold. Thus, “to remain competitive, Big Pharma will have to do things faster (like drug development) and cheaper for the patient, add more value for the same money, and become more proactive partners with patients and doctors in both wellness and cure” - one of the findings of this study emphasized.

It is quite common for most large to medium sized pharma companies to have in place a well-articulated organizational ‘ethics, compliance and values’, together with requisite checks and balances in the form of rigorous rules, regulations and other guidelines.

Most often these adorn the respective websites too, for public knowledge. The question, therefore, surfaces what could then possibly go wrong in the organization and where exactly does the real issue lie, while effectively managing the organizational growth?

“Non-compliance – A serious challenge to growth”: 

Serious malpractices and their related fallout in pharma business – not just in marketing, but clinical trials, manufacturing, quality assurance and other areas, are not usually due to any lack of requisite processes or expertise. These are generally serious consequences of non-compliance of various organizational norms. At times, with the indirect support of senior management, or senior management keeps their eyes closed on such non-compliances, under demanding obligation for delivering expected financial results and business growth.

Tweaking areas, such as employee performance-incentive norms, as happened in the cases of GSK or Novartis, can’t fetch a long-lasting solution in such a situation, as I see it. Nonetheless, the survey report findings of Deloitte, titled “Non-compliance – A serious challenge to growth,” are interesting to get a sense of the reasons behind the same.

Key reasons for non-compliance: 

The Deloitte report identifies some key contributors to malpractices and non-compliance in the pharma sector, indicating the percentage of survey respondents involved against each, as follows:

  • Lack of an efficient internal control/ compliance system:  61 percent
  • Weak regulatory enforcement / action taken against fraudsters:  55 percent
  • Inadequate utilization of technology tools available to identify red flags:  45 percent
  • Lack of a zero-tolerance approach towards malpractice and regulatory non-compliance:  45 percent
  • Inadequate due diligence on employees/ third party associates:  36 percent
  • Unrealistic targets/goals linked to monetary compensations:  33 percent
  • Senior management override of controls:  24 percent
  • Inadequate oversight by the Board/ Audit Committee:  06 percent

As I mentioned before, most key contributors to malpractice and non-compliance point towards a lack of senior management efficiency in internal controls, systems, and “inadequate utilization of technology tools available to identify red flags.” Curiously, no one mentions about the requirements for any fresh measures or systems to curb such incidents, in the future.

Just tweaking the present system may not help:

Just for changing the optics, tweaking the present system often doesn’t help. Many similar instances in the past, such as GSK’s example, as cited above, would vindicate this point. In the GSK case, at least, it’s the then CEO – Sir Andrew Witty expectedly realized that ‘unrealistic targets/goals linked to monetary compensations’ lead to such corruptions.

But total delinking of the core responsibility of any sales staff, namely ‘generation of top-level numbers both in volume and value’, with performance incentive, could throw some future challenges. Similar reason, presumably prompted GSK altering the plan when its sales began to suffer, at a later date.

Similarly, Novartis is, reportedly introducing a new behavioral metric as qualifying criteria for its employees to earn bonuses or incentives. Intriguingly, despite the existence of rigorous rules, regulations, guidelines and associated punitive provisions for not complying with the company ethics and values for a long-time, malpractices are still being reported today.

Thus, I wonder, how will an additional system of similar nature prevent recurrence of such incidents in the future? Anyway, only the future will tell whether a tweaking of this nature in the present system that did not work in the past, will work in this particular case effectively.

Conclusion:

The reasons for less than adequate internal controls of an organization, I reckon, fall squarely on the senior management, especially for repeat offences. Passing the blame to employees down the line or tweaking their performance appraisal system by introducing a ‘behavioral metric’, is likely to be short term, finger-pointing on the legacy factor notwithstanding.

On the contrary, these may likely to be construed as manifestations of knee-jerk reactions, and not so well-thought-out strategic measures. Neither do such repeated malpractices demonstrate a great spirit of the organization, nor do these evince astute leadership qualities of its top management.

Coming back to where I started from, quoting what the management guru Peter Drucker once said: “The spirit of an organization is created from the top… If an organization is great in spirit, it is because the spirit of its top people is great.” He also reiterated, no one should ever become a strategist unless he or she is willing to have his or her character serve as a model for subordinates This is certainly not the situation for those pharma players mired with alleged malpractices, repeatedly – not just in marketing, but in other operational areas too.

As the good old saying goes: “trees die from the top,” so is also an organization when its senior management lacks a moral compass on ethics, compliance and values. Considering what is being often reported on business malpractices within the drug industry, isn’t the saying equally apt for pharma leadership, as well?

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.

Marketing Practices: Why Pharma Does What It Does?

Posted on by
Reply

It started way back – spanning across many developed countries of the world. However, probably for the first time in the last five years, an international media group focused on this issue thriving in India, with so much detail.

Reuters reported it with a headline “In India, gift-giving drives drug makers’ marketing.” The report was supported by a detailed description of the relevant events, with ‘naming and shaming’. It drew the attention of some, apparently including the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP), but escaped the attention of many, and finally – got faded away with time, without any reported official investigation.

In this article, I shall revisit this subject against the backdrop of draft pharma policy 2017. My focus will be on the current marketing practices, with the moot question ‘why pharma does what it does’ occupying the center stage of this piece.

Bothering many across the world:

Pharma marketing practices wear different hues and shades. Many of these are contentious, and often perceived as gross ‘malpractices’. Nevertheless, across the world, these have mostly become an integral part of pharma business. Many law-enforcing authorities, including in the US, Europe, Japan and even China, have started taking tough penal action against those transgressions. Interestingly, the draft pharma policy 2017 intends to take this raging bull by its horn, with a multi-pronged approach, as I see it.

It’s a different debate, though, whether the policy makers should bring the mandatory Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) under the Essential Commodities Act, or the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India. Let’s wait and see what exactly transpires in scripting the final version of the new National Pharma Policy to address this issue, comprehensively.

The net impact of the fast evolving ‘newer norms’ of pharma ‘marketing’ practices, has been bothering a large section of the society, including the Governments, for quite some time. Consequently, many top-quality research studies are now being carried out to ascertain the magnitude of this problem. The top ranked pharma market in the world – the United States (US) are leading the way with such analysis. However, I haven’t come across similar India-specific analytical reports, just yet, probably due to lack of enough credible data sources.

Four recent studies:

Several interesting studies supported by a robust database have been carried out in the US during 2016 and 2017 to ascertain whether any direct relationship exists between payments in various forms made to the doctors by the pharmaceutical companies and physicians’ prescribing various drugs in brand names. For better understanding of this issue, I am quoting below, as examples, the gist of just four of such studies:

One of these studies conducted by ProPublica was published in March 2016. It found that physicians in five common medical specialties who accepted, at least one industry payment were more likely to prescribe higher rates of brand-name drugs than physicians who did not receive any payments. More interestingly, the doctors receiving larger payments had a higher brand-name prescribing rate, on an average. Additionally, the type of payment also made a difference: those who received meals alone from companies had a higher rate of brand-name prescribing than physicians receiving no payments, and those who accepted speaking payments had a higher rate of the same than those drawing other types of payments.

The details of the second study published in PLOS on May 16, 2016 states, “While distribution and amount of payments differed widely across medical specialties, for each of the 12 specialties examined the receipt of payments was associated with greater prescribing costs per patient, and greater proportion of branded medication prescribing. We cannot infer a causal relationship, but interventions aimed at those physicians receiving the most payments may present an opportunity to address prescribing costs in the US.”

The third example of such investigative study appeared in the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) on August 2016. This cross-sectional analysis, which included 279,669 physicians found that “physicians who received a single meal promoting the drug of interest, with a mean value of less than $20, had significantly higher rates of prescribing rosuvastatin as compared with other statins; nebivolol as compared with other β-blockers; olmesartan as compared with other angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers; and desvenlafaxine as compared with other selective serotonin and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors.”

This study also concluded that “Receipt of industry-sponsored meals was associated with an increased rate of prescribing the brand-name medication that was being promoted. The findings represent an association, not a cause-and-effect relationship.”

And the fourth analysis on the same subject featuring in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) of 18 August 2016 concluded that “Payments by the manufacturers of pharmaceuticals to physicians were associated with greater regional prescribing of marketed drugs among Medicare Part D beneficiaries. Payments to specialists and payments for speaker and consulting fees were predominantly associated with greater regional prescribing of marketed drugs than payments to non-specialists or payments for food and beverages, gifts, or educational materials.”

Exceptional steps by a few global CEOs – would the rest follow through?

As this juggernaut continues to move unrelenting, a few global CEOs have been taking some exceptional steps in this regard, e.g.:

- In December 2013, Sir Andrew Witty –  erstwhile global CEO of  GlaxoSmithKline tossed out the ‘Big Pharma marketing playbook’. He announced, no longer will his company pay doctors to promote its drugs or shell out bonuses to sales reps based on their ability to boost prescription numbers.

- Around September 2015, Brent Saunders – the Global CEO of Allergan was the first major drug company chief to explicitly renounce egregious price increases. Outlining his company’s “social contract with patients,” he vowed that Allergan would:

  • Limit price increases to single-digit percentages, “slightly above the current annual rate of inflation,” net of rebates and discounts
  • Limit price increases to once per year
  • Forego price increases in the run-up to patent expiration, except in the case of corresponding cost increases.

- In October 2016, Joseph Jimenez – the current global CEO of Novartis said, “We tell people, we don’t want you to deliver at any cost. We want you to deliver, but we want you to deliver in the right way,”

It’s probably a different matter, though, that one of these CEOs has already stepped down, another will do so early 2018, and third iconoclast is still in the saddle. They all are still relatively young, as compared to several of their counterparts.

These are some of the laudable steps taken by a few CEOs for their respective global operations. However, the moot question remains: would rest of the Big Pharma constituents come on board, and successfully follow these initiatives through?

That said, the overall scenario in this area, both in India and abroad, continues to remain mostly unchanged.

Why pharma does what is does?

This may not be akin to a million-dollar question, as its right answer is no-brainer – to generate more, and even more prescription demand for the respective focused brands of the concerned pharma companies. In a scenario, as we have seen above, when money can buy prescriptions with relative ease, and more money buys more prescriptions, how do the prescribers differentiate between different brands of the same molecules or combination of molecules, for greater support?

As evident from various available reports, this kind of intangible product differentiation of dubious nature, doesn’t necessarily have a linear relationship with the quantum of money spent for this purpose. Many believe, it is also intimately related to the nature or kind of various ‘gratis’ extended, some of which are highly contentious. Illustratively, how exotic is the venue of so called ‘Continuing Medical Education (CME)’ event, whether located in India or beyond its shores, bundled with the quality of comfort provided by the event managers, or even whether the spouses can also join the doctors for a few days of a relaxed trip with fabulous sight-seeing arrangements.

Regardless of many pharma players’ terming these events as purely educational in nature, lots of questions in this regard – accompanied by proof, have reportedly been raised on the floor of the Indian Parliament, as well, cutting across virtually all political party lines.

Conclusion:

Should anyone tag the term ‘marketing’ against any such pharma business practices, or even remotely accept these as integral parts of any ‘branding exercise’? For better understanding of my readers, I had explained what this buzzword – ‘branding’ really means in the marketing vocabulary.

Be that as it may, where from the pharma companies recover the huge cost of such vexed business practices? Who ultimately pays for these – and, of course, why? So far, in India, the basic reasoning for the same used to be – branded generics provide significantly better and more predictable drug quality and efficacy than non-branded generics, for patients’ safety.

This logic is anchored mainly on the argument that bioequivalence (BE) and bioavailability (BA) studies are mandatory for all generic drug approvals in India. Interestingly, that loose knot has been tightened in the draft pharma policy proposals 2017. Hope, this commendable policy intent will ultimately see the light of the day, unless another innovative new reason pops-up.

Against this backdrop, many ponder: Are the current pharma ‘marketing’ practices, especially in India, akin to riding a tiger? If the answer is affirmative, the aftermath of the new pharma policy’s coming into force – broadly in its current form and with strict enforcement measures, could well be too tough to handle for those drug players without a Plan B ready.

That said, pharma ‘marketing’ ballgame is getting increasingly more complex, with the involvement of several third-parties, as is often reported. Alongside, it’s equally challenging to fathom ‘why pharma does what it does’ to generate more prescription demand at an incremental cost, which far exceeds commensurate incremental value that branded generics provide to patients in India.

By: Tapan J. Ray 

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

Drug Price Control in India: When A Local Media Goes Against, A Global CEO Doesn’t

Posted on by
Reply

‘Variety is the spice of life’, as the good old saying goes. The week, just gone by, was indeed packed with a wide variety of surprises, well encompassing various important areas, some of which are as follows:

  • Effective November 08, 2016 midnight, Indian currency notes of ₹500 and ₹1000 denominations ceased to remain legal tenders. This demonetization followed extensive media coverage, both national and international, on unprecedented administrative and public chaos around this otherwise bold and good intent.
  • The same day witnessed much unexpected triumph of Trump as the 45th President-Elect and the Commander-in-Chief of the United States of America. It is entirely a different matter though, that post-election, millions of Americans reportedly took to streets across the United states to vent their fury over the billionaire’s election victory.
  • On November 07, 2016, a well-known Indian business daily, ‘The Economic Times’, in its editorial, apparently expressed its solidarity with the pharma industry, in general, to do away with drug price control in India. The key reason for this advocacy, as I could sense, is to encourage the drug players to grow by making more profits. I respect this view of the editor will all humility. However, the point that I am unable to ferret out though, what happens to especially the poor patients in such an eventuality. With hands-on experience in the pharma industry over several decades, it appears to me that the editorial suggestions, as well, grossly lack in requisite depth of understanding of the core issue.
  • On November 09, 2016, quite opposite to what the above editorial of ‘The Economic Times’, the current global CEO of GlaxoSmithKline – Sir Andrew Witty, in an interview, strongly argued in favor of the necessity of drug price control in India, that improves access to medicines for a vast majority of the country’s population. To substantiate this point Sir Andrew said in another interview on the same day, “We’ve seen demand of products jump 45 percent after the price is cut by 20 percent. The problem arises when we don’t have supply to cater to the demand, leaving patients frustrated. A bit more predictability (on the part of government) will help.”
  • As if this diametrically opposite views are not enough, on November 10, 2016, the well-known civil society organization – ‘All India Drug Action Network (AIDAN)’, reportedly sent legal notices to the CEO of Niti Aayog CEO and secretaries to the Health Ministry, Department of Pharmaceuticals and Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion over their talks to cut the powers of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA). AIDAN has termed this Government move “anti-national” and “anti-people”, further adding that it affects an ongoing case at the Supreme Court over various aspects of the drug price control.

In this article, I shall restrict myself to the pharma related issue of the past week, especially on the interesting advocacy through editorial, against the drug price control in India. Simultaneously, I shall also underscore its relevance in the country, primarily to improve access to medicines for millions of Indians, as articulated by one of the leading voices from the global pharma industry.

Is the yardstick of judging pharma industry different?

This particular question floats in my mind because of several reasons. One such is, almost regularly sponsoring fully paid trips for doctors, especially in an exotic foreign land, by many pharma companies. Such practices of the drug companies are generally inferred, more often than not spearheaded by a large section of the media, as dubious means of the organization to entice, or influence prescribing decisions of physicians in favor of their respective high priced brands, ignoring the health and economic interest of patients.

In similar context, just after having a quick glance over a not so important article, written on various operations at the headquarter of a global drug company situated in a beautiful locale of the world, when one focuses the fine print at the end as a disclaimer, which reads: “This reporter was in (name of the country) on an invitation by (name of the global company)…, do the readers arrive at the same conclusion on ‘gratification’, as above, and its consequent possible outcome on pharma related writings of these reporters?

Can the concerned members of the ‘Fourth Estate’ possibly claim desired intellectual independence in their analysis of a situation involving such companies or their trade associations, even after the above disclaimer? Or for that matter, related publications too, which allow acceptance of such avoidable ‘gratis’ by its reporters? Shouldn’t such incidences, whenever these happen, irrespective of who availed these, be perceived in the same light?

In the current scenario, this issue is something for us to seriously ponder. This is mainly because, for following similar practices, why should there be two different yardsticks to gauge the quality of professional independence of two different otherwise highly respectable professions?

This reminds me of a great pharma reporter, writing for an internationally acclaimed business daily, mainly on the drug industry and healthcare. I met him in India a few years back on his invitation. Although, I shall not take either his or his paper’s name. This is to show respect to our free and frank interaction. He flew down to India with his employer paying all the pharma reporting work related expenses. He met with all those in the Indian drug industry that he wanted to, primarily to capture the nuances of the thought pattern of large and small Indian pharma players. I was so impressed with his intellect, and independent professional outlook, like all those who met him during his that specific visit to India. Even now, I can feel his independent perspective, as I read his articles. It would be great to experience similar feelings, while reading pharma related articles and editorials, in various publications of my own country. At the same time, I shall be delighted to be proved wrong regarding any such possibilities in this area.

That said, I shall now move on to the relevance of drug price control in India.

Any relevance of drug price control in a ‘Free Market Economy’?

No doubt, this is a very pertinent question. Equally pertinent answers are also available in a 2014 paper titled, “Competition Issues in the Indian Pharmaceuticals Sector” of Delhi School Economics (DSE). The paper deals with issues related to failure of ‘Free Market Economy’, despite intense competition, especially for branded generic drugs in India.

Quoting a practicing surgeon, the DSE article states: “Sometimes it could be just plain ignorance about the availability of a cheaper alternative that makes doctors continue to prescribe costlier brands. But one cannot ignore the role of what is euphemistically called marketing “incentive”, which basically mean the inappropriate influence pharmaceutical companies exert on doctors. This runs deep. Hospitals choose to stock only certain drugs in their in-house pharmacies and insist that hospitalized patients buy drugs only from the hospital pharmacy. Drug companies sell drugs to hospitals at a price much lower than what the patient is charged, further incentivizing the hospital to stock their products. The cheaper brands often get left out in this game.”

Further, in an ideal free-market economic model, for all approved branded generics with exactly the same formulation, having the same claimable efficacy, safety and quality standards, though marketed by different pharma companies, competitive forces should prompt some parity in their pricing.

Any generic brand with exactly the same formulation as others and offering the same therapeutic value, but costing significantly more, should ideally attract a lesser number of customers, if and where purchase decisions are taken by the consumers directly. However, for prescription medicines it’s not so. The well proven process of consumers exercising their own choice to select a brand, mostly influenced by advertising or word of mouth, does not happen at all.

The Government attributes ‘Market Failure’ for pharmaceuticals:

In its price notification dated July 10, 2014, the NPPA has categorically stated the following:

  • There exist huge inter-brand price differences in branded-generics, which is indicative of a severe market failure, as different brands of the same drug formulation, which are identical to each other in terms of active ingredient(s), strength, dosage, route of administration, quality, product characteristics, and intended use, vary disproportionately in terms of price.
  • It is observed that, the different brands of the drug formulation may sometimes differ in terms of binders, fillers, dyes, preservatives, coating agents, and dissolution agents, but these differences are not significant in terms of therapeutic value.
  • In India the market failure for pharmaceuticals can be attributed to several factors, but the main reason is that the demand for medicines is largely prescription driven and the patient has very little choice in this regard.
  • Market failure alone may not constitute sufficient grounds for government intervention, but when such failure is considered in the context of the essential role of pharmaceuticals play in the area of public health, which is a social right, such intervention becomes necessary, especially when exploitative pricing makes medicines generally unaffordable and beyond the reach of most and also puts the huge financial burden in terms of out-of-pocket expenditure on health care.

Civil Society echoed the same sentiment:

In this context, it is important to note that seven large Civil Society Organizations in a letter of August 20, 2014 addressed to Mr. Ananth Kumar, the present Minister of Chemicals and Fertilizers with a copy to Prime Minister Modi, articulated similar views, as follows:

“Limiting all price regulation only to a list of 348 medicines and specified dosages and strengths in the DPCO 2013 goes against the policy objective of making medicines affordable to the public. The National List of Essential Medicines, a list of 348 rational and cost-effective medicines, is not the basis for production, promotion and prescription in India. In reality the most frequently prescribed and consumed medicines are not listed in the NLEM.”

Last week, AIDAN has also indicated that the reported Government move to curtail the power vested on the NPPA for drug price, affects an ongoing case at the Supreme Court over various aspects of the drug price control.

Are medicines cheapest in India…really?

It is often highlighted that medicines cost much cheaper, if not the cheapest, in India. This is too simplistic a view on this subject. It compares the prevailing Indian drug prices in Rupee, against the prices of similar drugs in other countries, just by simple conversion of the foreign currencies, such as, US$ and Euro into Rupee. To make the comparison realistic and credible, Indian drug prices should be compared against the same in other countries, only after applying the following two critical parameters:

  • Purchasing Power Parity and Per Capita Income
  • Quantum of per capita ‘Out of Pocket Expenditure’ on drugs

The Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) with the help of academia and other experts had earlier deliberated on this issue in one of its reports on patented drug pricing. The report established that post application of the above two parameters, medicines in India are virtually as expensive as in the developed world, causing great inconvenience to the majority of patients in the country.

Hence, common patients expectedly look for some kind of critical intervention by the Government, at least, on the prices of essential drugs in India.

‘Cannot do away with Drug Price Control’ – said the New Government:

On August 24, 2015 in an interview with a national business daily, V K Subburaj, the Secretary of the Department of Pharmaceuticals commented, “Price control on drugs a shot in the arm for health care” and “the Government cannot do away with it.”

He argued, “A large section of the population is poor. Suddenly, your system is disturbed if you have to spend more on drugs. Drugs are an important component of health care expenditure.”

Accepting the fact that in India, big and small companies investing in research would need more money, Mr. Subburaj said, “In India, we can’t afford to remove controls as the burden of disease is high.”

All stakeholders expect that there is some predictability in what the Government says. Can the stand taken by the policymakers change in just a year’s time, probably wilting under industry pressure?

Conclusion:

The drug price control in India is in vogue since 1970, uninterruptedly. The retail audit data continue to indicate that the growth of the Indian pharma industry, over the last four and half decade long price control regime, has been nothing less than spectacular. This would consequently mean, increasing consumption of drugs, leading to improved access to medicines in India, including its hinterland, though may still not be good enough. Sir Andrew Witty of GSK also articulated the same view, just the last week. It’s a different story altogether that some of the industry sponsored expensive market surveys attempt to wish it away.

Coincidentally, at the commencement of drug price control regime in India in 1970, almost all the players in the ‘Top 10’ pharma league table of the country, were multi-national drug companies. Today the situation has just reversed. Out of ‘Top 10’, about seven are home grown drug companies. Many of these companies were born post 1970. Without frequent M&As by the pharma MNCs, this number could have been probably higher today.

By the way, what’s the span of drug price control in India really – just about 18 percent of the total domestic pharma market now? Around 80 percent of the local drug market continues to remain in the ‘free-pricing’ and ‘high-profit’ zone.

When it comes to profitability, it is worth mentioning, the promoter of the so called ‘low margin’ generic pharma company – Sun Pharma, is the second-richest person in India. He created his initial wealth from India, despite ostensible ‘growth stunting’ price control.

Keeping this in perspective, is it not baffling to fathom the reason behind a local business publication’s apparently endorsing the advocacy initiatives of pharma industry against drug price control through an editorial, when a well-regarded global pharma CEO expresses a strong favorable view in this regard?

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.

Millennial Generation Doctors And Patients: Changing Mindset, Aspirations, And Expectations

Posted on by
Reply

The term ‘Millennial Generation’ normally refers to the generation, born from 1980 onward, brought up using digital technology and mass media. According to ‘Millennial Mindset’ – a website dedicated to helping businesses understand millennial employees and new ways of working, the key attributes of this generation are broadly considered as follows:

  1. Technology Driven:
  2. Socially Conscious
  3. Collaborative

The millennial mindset:

The publication also indicates that the overall mindset of the millennial generation is also vastly different from the previous generations, which can fall into four categories:

  1. Personal freedom, Non-hierarchical, Interdependent, Connected, Networked, Sharing
  2. Instant gratification, Wide Knowledge, Test and learn, Fast paced, Always on, Innovative
  3. Fairness, Narcissistic, Purpose driven
  4. Balance, Eco-friendly and Experience focused

Seeks different professional ecosystem:

In the professional arena too, this new generation’s expectations from the professional ecosystem are often seen to be distinctly different, as they are generally seen to be:

  • Willing to make a meaningful professional contribution, mostly through self-learning
  • Seek maintaining a reasonable balance between work and personal life
  • Prefer flexible work environment, unwilling to be rigidly bound by convention, tradition, or set rules
  • Impatient for fast both personal and organizational growth, often on the global canvas

The ‘Millennial Generation’ in India:

The millennium generation with a different mindset, aspirations and value system, already constitutes a major chunk of the Indian demography. According to the 2011 Census, out of estimated 1.2 billion population, around 701 million Indians (60 percent) are under 30 years of age, which also very often referred to as ‘demographic dividend’ of India.

Currently, a large number of Indians belonging to the millennial generation are entering into the work stream of both national and International companies operating in the country.

The challenge in healthcare arena:

In the healthcare sphere too, we now come across a fast increasing number of technology savvy and digitally inclined patients and doctors of this generation. Accurately gauging, and then meeting with their changing expectations has indeed been a challenging task for the pharma companies, and the related service providers.

Their expectations from the brands and other services, as provided by the pharma companies, don’t seem to be quite the same as before, either, so are the individually preferred communication formats, the way of processing, and quickly cross-verifying the product and other healthcare information. Before arriving at any decision, they were found to keenly observe the way brands are marketed, their intrinsic value, type and the quality of interface for engagement with them by the companies, whenever required.

Thus, from the pharma business perspective, qualitatively different strategic approaches, to both the millennial doctors and patients, would be of increasing importance and an ongoing exercise. The goal posts would also keep moving continuously. Achieving proficiency in this area with military precision, I reckon, would differentiate the men from the boys, in pursuit of business performance excellence.

In this article, I shall primarily discuss on the changing mindset and needs of the patients and doctors of the ‘millennial generation’.

A. Treating millennial patients differently:

Around 81 percent of millennial doctors, against 57 percent of older generation doctors think that millennial patients require a different relationship with their doctors than non-millennial patients. About 66 percent of millennial doctors actually act upon this and change their approach, as the survey reported.

The difference:

The key differences on millennial doctors’ treating millennial patients, are mainly in the following areas:

  • Expects more, doesn’t get swayed away: Millennial doctors are more likely to advise the millennial patients to do additional research on their own for discussion. 71 percent of millennial doctors believe it’s helpful for patients to do online research before their appointment. However, they don’t get swayed by requests from more-informed patients, as only 23 percent of millennial doctors say they are influenced by patient requests when it comes to prescribing a treatment, whereas 41 percent of non-millennial doctors report finding those requests influential.
  • Gets into the details: The millennial doctors are more likely to simplify and streamline explanations for older patients, whereas non- millennial doctors were more likely to simplify explanations for millennial patients too, treating them exactly the same way.
  • Relies on digital resources: Millennial doctors rely mostly on using digital resources for treating millennial patients, but only around 56.5 percent of them do so for non-millennial patients.

B. Treating millennial doctors differently:

For effective business engagement and ensure commensurate financial outcomes, pharma companies will first require to know and deeply understand the changing mindset, expectations, and aspirations of the millennial doctors, then work out tailor-made strategic approaches, accordingly, to achieve the set objectives.

Top 3 expectations from the pharma industry:

According to a June 2016 special survey report on Healthcare Marketing to Millennials, released by inVentive Health agencies, the top 3 expectations of millennial and non-millennial doctors from the pharma industry, are as follows:

Rank Millennial Doctors % Rank Non- Millennial Doctors %
1. Unbranded Disease Information 67 1. Unbranded Disease Information 58
2. Discussion Guides 48 2. Latest Specific News 46
3. Adherence Support 40 3. Healthy Life Style Information 42

Pharma players, therefore, can provide customized offerings and services, in various innovative platforms, based on these top 3 different expectations of millennial and non-millennial doctors, to achieve much needed critical competitive edge for a sustainable business performance.

Brand communication process needs a relook:

The above report also noted a number of the interesting trends related to the millennial doctors. I am quoting below just a few of those:

  • Only 16 percent of millennial doctors found pharma promotional materials to be influential when considering a new treatment compared to 48 percent of non-millennial doctors who do.
  • 79 percent of them refer to information from pharmaceutical companies only after they’ve found that information elsewhere.
  • 65 percent of these doctors indicated, they did not trust information from pharmaceutical companies to be fair and balanced, while only 48 percent of their older peers shared that sentiment.
  • 50 percent found educational experiences that are driven by their peers to be the most relevant for learning and considering about new treatments, against 18 percent of non-millennial physicians.
  • 52 percent of them, when learning about new treatment options, favor peers as their conversation partners.
  • They are much more likely to rely on a third-party website for requisite product or treatment information
  • 60 percent of millennial doctors are more likely to see a pharma rep, if they offer important programs for their patients, compared to only 47 percent of non-millennial doctors. This also reflects greater patient centric values of the millennial doctors.
  • However, an overwhelming 81percent of millennial doctors believe that any type of ‘Direct To Consumer (DTC)’ promotion makes their job harder, because patients ask for medications they don’t need.
  • 41 percent of millennial doctors prefer a two-way and an in-person interaction, against just 11 percent of them with online reps. Here, it should be noted that this has to be an ‘interaction’, not just predominantly a monologue, even while using an iPad or any other android tablets.

Redesigning processes to meet changing expectations and needs:

Thus, to create requisite value, and ensure effective engagement with millennial doctors, the pharma companies may consider exploring the possibility of specifically designing their entire chain of interface with Millennials, right from promotional outreach to adherence tools, and from medical communications to detailing, as the survey report highlights. I shall mention below just a few of those as examples:

Communication platforms:

For personal, more dynamic and effective engagement, non-personal digital platforms – driving towards personal interactions with company reps, together with facilitating collaboration between their professional peer groups, came out as of immense importance to them.

Adherence and outcomes:

There is a need for the pharma companies to move the strategic engagement needle more towards patient outcomes. This is mainly because, medication adherence is a large part of the patient outcome equation. It involves a wide range of partnerships, such as, between patients and physicians, and also the physicians and pharma players. This particular need can be best met by offering exactly the type of collaborative approach that millennial doctors favor.

Medical communication:

Redesigning the core narrative of medical communication around a disease state and product, engaging the wisdom and enthusiasm of scientific, clinical, and educational leaders primarily to serve a well-articulated noble cause, are likely to fetch desired results, allaying the general distrust of millennial doctors on the pharma companies, in general.

Medical representative:

Earning the trust of the millennial doctors by respecting, accepting, and appealing to their value systems, is of utmost importance for the medical reps. To achieve this, drug companies would require to equip their reps with tools and programs that offer value in terms of patient support and adherence, while demonstrating compelling outcomes with a positive patient experience, and greater efficiency in treatment decisions.

Building reputation:

The “Purpose Generation” – that’s how millennials are often referred to. In that sense, to build a long lasting business reputation among them, pharma companies need to be in sync with this new generation.

Weaving a trusting relationship with them involves meeting all those needs that these doctors value, such as, adherence solutions, innovative patient support programs, and creating shared value for communities. This would mean, for many drug companies, charting an almost uncharted frontier, where there aren’t many footsteps to follow.

Need to induct younger generation to top leadership positions faster:

To capture these changes with precision, and designing effective engagement strategies for millennial patients and doctors accordingly, an open, innovative and virtually contemporary mindset with a pair of fresh eyes, are essential. As against this, even today, many ‘Baby Boomers’ (born approximately between 1946 and 1956), who have already earned the status of senior citizens, meticulously nursing a not so flexible mind with traditional views, still keep clutching on to the key top leadership positions in the pharma industry, both global and local.

This prevailing trend encompasses even those who are occupying just ornamental corporate leadership positions, mostly for PR purpose, besides being the public face of the organization, sans any significant and direct operational or financial responsibilities. Nevertheless, by pulling all available corporate levers and tricks, they hang-on to the job. In that way, these senior citizens delay the process of change in the key leadership positions with younger generation of professionals, who understand not just the growing Millennials much better, but also the ever changing market dynamics, and intricate customer behavior, to lead the organization to a greater height of all round success.

I hasten to add, a few of the younger global head honcho have now started articulating a different vision altogether, which is so relevant by being a community benefit oriented and patient centric, in true sense. These icons include the outgoing GSK chief Sir Andrew Witty, who explains how ‘Big Pharma’ can help the poor and still make money, and the Allergan CEO Brent Saunders promising to keep drug prices affordable. Being rather small in number, these sane voices get easily drowned in the din of other global head honchos, curling their lips at any other view point of less self-serving in nature. Quite understandably, their local or surrounding poodles, toe exactly the same line, often displaying more gusto, as many believe.

Conclusion:

The triumph of outdated colonial mindset within the drug industry appears to be all pervasive, even today. It keeps striving hard to implement the self-serving corporate agenda, behind the façade of ‘Patient Centricity’. When the demography is changing at a faster pace in many important countries, such as India, a sizeable number of the critical decision makers don’t seem to understand, and can’t possibly fathom with finesse and precision, the changing mindset, aspirations and expectations of the millennial generation doctors and patients.

Expectedly, this approach is increasingly proving to be self-defeating, if not demeaning to many. It’s affecting the long term corporate performance, continually inviting the ire of the stakeholders, including Governments in various countries.

From this perspective, as the above survey results unravel, the millennial doctors and patients, with their changing mindset, aspirations, expectations and demands, look forward to an environment that matches up with the unique characteristics and values of their own generation.

To excel in this evolving scenario, especially in India – with one of the youngest demographic profiles, proper understanding of the nuances that’s driving this change, by the top echelon of the pharma management, is of utmost importance. Only then, can any strategic alignment of corporate business interests with the expectations of fast growing Millennials take shape, bridging the ongoing trust deficit of the stakeholders, as the pharma industry moves ahead with an accelerated pace.

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.