Rebuilding Pharma Image: A Laudable Mindset – Lacking In Many

Posted on July 24, 2017 by Tapan Ray

The fierce debate on ethics and compliance related issues in the pharma marketing practices still reverberates, across the globe. One of its key fallout has been ever-increasing negative consumer perception about this sector, sparing a very few companies, if at all. As a result, many key communications of the individual players, including the industry associations specifically targeted to them, are becoming less and less credible, if not ineffective.

Which is why, though pharma as an industry is innovative in offering new medicines, consumers don’t perceive it so. Despite several drug players’ taking important steps towards stakeholder engagement, consumers don’t perceive so. The list goes on and on. I discussed on such consumer perception in my article of June 26, 2017. Hence, won’t further go into that subject, here.

General allegation on the pharma industry continues to remain unchanged, such as the drug industry tries to influence the medical profession, irrespective of whether they write prescription drugs for patients or are engaged in regulatory trial related activities aimed at product marketing.

Let me give an example to illustrate the later part of it, and in the Indian context. On April 26, 2017, it was reported that responding to a joint complaint filed by Mylan and Biocon in 2016, alleging that the Roche Group indulged in “abusive conduct”, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) gave directions for carrying out a detailed investigation on the subject. This probe was initiated to ascertain, whether Roche used its dominant position to maintain its monopoly over the breast cancer drug Trastuzumab, adversely impacting its access to many patients.

Such a scenario, though, undoubtedly disturbing, is very much avoidable. Thus, winning back the fading trust of the consumers in the industry, should be ticked as a top priority by the concerned parties.

In this article, I shall mostly focus on some recent developments related to ethics and compliance issues, mainly in pharma marketing, and with a small overlap on the regulatory and other areas, as and when required to drive home a point.

It shakes the trust base on the medical profession too:

This menace, as it were, though, more intense in India, is neither confined to its shores alone, nor just to the pharma industry, notwithstanding several constituents of big pharma have been implicated in mega bribery scandals in different countries. There doesn’t seem to be much doubt, either, that its impact has apparently shaken the very base of trust even on the medical profession, in general.

Not very long ago, Dr. Samiran Nundy, while holding the positions of Chairman, Department of Surgical Gastroenterology and Organ Transplantation at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Current Medicine Research and Practice, reportedly exposed the widespread malpractices of the doctors in India who are taking cuts for referrals and prescribing unnecessary drugs, investigations and procedures for profit.

This practice continues even today, unabated. On June 18, 2017, it was widely reported in India that Maharashtra Government has decided to form a 3-member committee for suggesting effective ways to check the ‘cut practice’ of doctors. This decision followed a public awareness campaign on this subject, initiated by well-reputed late heart surgeon – Dr. Ramakanta Panda’s Asian Heart Institute, located in Mumbai. The hospital had put up a hoarding saying: ‘No commission. Only honest medical opinion’. The Indian Medical Association opposed the hoarding. But the hospital wrote to Maharashtra medical education minister seeking a legislation to fight this malpractice.

To contain this malady across India, for the sake of patients, Dr. Nundy had then suggested that to begin with, “The Medical Council of India (MCI), currently an exclusive club of doctors, has to be reconstituted. Half the members must be lay people like teachers, social workers and patient groups like the General Medical Council in Britain, where, if a doctor is found to be corrupt, he is booted out by the council.”

This subject continues to remain an open secret, just as pharma marketing malpractices, and remains mostly confined to the formation of various committees.

“Corruption ruins the doctor-patient relationship in India” – a reconfirmation:

“Corruption ruins the doctor-patient relationship in India” - highlighted an article published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) on 08 May 2014. Its author – David Berger wrote, “Kickbacks and bribes oil every part of the country’s health care machinery and if India’s authorities cannot make improvements, international agencies should act.”

He reiterated, it’s a common complaint, both of the poor and the middle class, that they don’t trust their doctors from the core of hearts. They don’t consider them honest, and live in fear of having no other choice but to consult them, which results in high levels of doctor shopping. David Berger also deliberated on the widespread corruption in the pharmaceutical industry, with doctors bribed to make them prescribe specified drugs.

The article does not fail to mention that many Indian doctors do have huge expertise, are honorable and treat their patients well. However, as a group, doctors generally have a poor reputation.

Until the medical profession together with the pharma industry is prepared to tackle this malady head-on and acknowledge the corrosive effects of medical corruption, the doctor-patient relationship will continue to lie in tatters, the paper says.

Uniform code of ethical pharma marketing practices:

This brings us to the need of a uniform code of ethical pharma marketing practices. Such codes, regardless of whether voluntary or mandatory, are developed to ensure that pharma companies, either individually or collectively, indulge in ethical marketing practices, comply with all related rules and regulations, avoid predominantly self-serving goals and conflict interest with the medical profession, having an adverse impact on patients’ health interest.

This need was felt long ago. Accordingly, various pharma companies, including their trade associations, came up with their own versions of the same, for voluntary practice. As I wrote before, such codes of voluntary practice, mostly are not working. That hefty fines are being levied by the government agencies in various countries, that include who’s who of the drug industry around the world, with India being a major exception in this area, would vindicate the point.

Amid all these, probably a solitary global example of demonstrable success with the implementation of voluntary codes of ethical pharma marketing practices, framed by a trade association in a major western country of the world, now stands head and shoulders above others.

Standing head and shoulders above others:

On June 23, 2017, the international business daily – ‘Financial Times’ (FT), reported: “Drug maker Astellas sanctioned for ‘shocking’ patient safety failures”

Following ‘a series of shocking breaches of guidelines’ framed by ‘The Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA)’ – an integral part of the ‘Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI)’, publicly threatened the Japanese drug major – Astellas, for a permanent expulsion from the membership of the Association. However, PMCPA ultimately decided to limit the punishment to a 12-month suspension, after the company accepted its rulings and pledged to make the necessary changes. Nevertheless, Astellas could still be expelled, if PMCPA re-audit in October do not show any “significant progress” in the flagged areas – the report clarified.

Interestingly, just in June last year, ABPI had suspended Astellas for 12 months ‘because of breaches related to an advisory board meeting and deception, including providing false information to PMCPA’. The company had also failed to provide complete prescribing information for several medicines, as required by the code – another report highlights.

Astellas is one of the world’s top 20 pharmaceutical companies by revenue with a market capitalization of more than £20bn. In 2016 its operations in Europe, the Middle East and Africa generated revenues of €2.5bn –reports the FT.

What is PMCPA?

One may be interested to fathom how seriously the implementation of the uniform code of pharmaceutical marketing practice is taken in the United Kingdom (UK), and how transparent the system is.

The Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA) is the self-regulatory body which administers the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry’s (ABPI) Code of Practice for the Pharmaceutical Industry, independent of the ABPI. It is a not-for-profit body, which was established by the ABPI on 1 January 1993. In other words, the PMCPA is a division of the British pharma trade association – ABPI.

According to PMCPA website, it:

Operates the complaints procedure under which the materials and activities of pharmaceutical companies are considered in relation to the requirements of the Code.
Provides advice and guidance on the Code.
Provides training on the Code.
Arranges conciliation between pharmaceutical companies when requested to do so.
Scrutinizes samples of advertisements and meetings to check their compliance with the Code.

As I often quote: ‘proof of the pudding is in eating’, it may not be very difficult to ascertain, how a constructive collective mindset of those who are on the governing board of a pharma trade association, can help re-creating the right image for the pharma industry, in a meaningful way.

Advertisements and public reprimands for code violations:

The PMCPA apparently follows a system to advertise in the medical and pharmaceutical press brief details of all cases where companies are ruled in breach of the Code. The concerned companies are required to issue a corrective statement or are the subject of a public reprimand.

For the current year, the PMCPA website has featured the details of three ABPI members as on May 2017, namely, Gedeon Richter, Astellas, and Gedeon Richter, for breaching the ethical code of practices.

However, in 2016, as many as 15 ABPI members featured in this list of similar violations. These are: Vifor Pharma, Celgene, Takeda, Pierre Fabre, Grünenthal Ltd, Boehringer Ingelheim Limited, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Janssen-Cilag, Astellas, Stirling Anglian, Guerbet, Napp, Hospira, Genzyme, Bausch & Lomb and Merck Serono. It is worth noting that the names of some these major companies had appeared more than once, during that year.

I am quoting the names of those companies breaching the ABPI code, just to illustrate the level of transparency in this process. The details of previous years are available at the same website. As I said, this is probably a solitary example of demonstrable success with the implementation of voluntary practices of ethical pharma marketing codes, framed by any pharma trade association.

In conclusion:

Many international pharmaceutical trade associations, which are primarily the lobbying outfits, are known as the strong votaries of self-regulations of the uniform code of ethical pharma marketing practices, including in India. Some of them are also displaying these codes in their respective websites. However, regardless of all this, the ground reality is, the much-charted path of the well-hyped self-regulation by the industry to stop this malaise, is not working. ABPI’s case, I reckon, though laudable, may well be treated as an exception.

In India, even the Government in power today knows it and publicly admitted the same. None other than the secretary of the Department of pharmaceuticals reportedly accepted this fact with the following words: “A voluntary code has been in place for the last few months. However, we found it very difficult to enforce it as a voluntary code. Hence, the government is planning to make it compulsory.”

Following this, as reported on March 15, 2016, in a written reply to the Lok Sabha, the Minister of State for Chemicals and Fertilizers, categorically said that the Government has decided to make the Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practice (UCPMP) mandatory to control unethical practices in the pharma industry.

The mindset that ABPI has demonstrated on voluntary implementation of their own version of UCPMP, is apparently lacking in India. Thus, to rebuild the pharma industry image in the country and winning back the trust of the society, the mandatory UCPMP with a robust enforcement machinery, I reckon, is necessary – without any further delay.

However, the sequence of events in the past on the same, trigger a critical doubt: Has the mandatory UCPMP slipped through the crack created by the self-serving interest of pharma lobbyists, including all those peripheral players whose business interests revolve round the current pharma marketing practices. Who knows?

Nonetheless, the bottom line remains: the mandatory UCPMP is yet to be enforced in India… if at all!

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.

Do Consumers Perceive Pharma Industry Innovative?

Posted on June 26, 2017 by Tapan Ray

One of the world’s richest and most powerful American pharma associations, having an equally strong indirect global presence, apparently, expects all concerned to give an emphatic affirmative answer to the above question.

Vindication of this thought gets reflected in the self-description of the association claiming, it “represents the country’s leading innovative biopharmaceutical research companies. Our members are devoted to discovering and developing medicines that enable patients to live longer, healthier and more productive lives. New medicines are an integral part of the health care system, providing doctors and patients with safe and effective treatment options, and improving quality of life.”

Nearer home, the reverberations of the same could be felt when Novartis lost the Glivec patent case in the Supreme Court of India. At that time, the Wall Street Journal quoted Eric Althoff – a spokesman of Novartis saying, “If innovation is rewarded, there is a clear business case to move forward. If it isn’t rewarded and protected, there isn’t.”

In sync with this self-belief, all pharma trade associations, located across the world, intensely lobbying for the ‘research-based’ global drug companies, together with their individual members, also expect the stakeholders to believe, as if, innovation is the middle name of the pharma industry. This process continues unabated, though, is expensive, and costing millions of dollars every year.

This core intent of doing so, may well be a statement of fact to some, and a contentious one to many, for various reasons. Be that as it may, as the proof of the pudding lies in eating, it is worth ferreting out how successful these efforts have been with the consumers of pharma products. Do they generally buy this concept, and if not, why?

In this article, I shall try to explore the overall scenario in this area.

A recent study:

A recent study results released on June 12, 2017, based on a survey on this issue, and that too conducted in the homeland of pharma innovation – America, brings to the fore a startling fact. In the absence of any other, better and more credible recent study, I shall draw upon some relevant facts from this report.

Klick Health Health – reportedly one of the world’s largest independent health marketing and commercialization agency headquartered in Toronto, Ontario, conducted this survey. As the agency reports, this is an online omnibus survey, conducted between May 19 and May 21, 2017 among 1,012 randomly selected American adults. The margin of error is +/- 3.1 percent. To ensure that the findings are representative of the entire adult population of America, the results have been statistically weighted according to education, age, gender, region, and ethnicity. Discrepancies in or between totals are due to rounding, the report says.

Consumer perception on pharma innovation:

Some of the major findings on consumers’ perception regarding the innovativeness of the pharma industry, are as follows:

Consumers do not believe that healthcare-related industries are particularly innovative today.

Only 17 percent of consumers polled perceive pharmaceuticals & biotech, health & wellness, and hospital sectors as the most innovative, ranking in the 4^th place after consumer electronics (72 percent), telecommunications (87 percent), and media & entertainment (90 percent).

Among health-related industries, respondents ranked health & wellness first in terms of the industry that should be the most innovative (17 percent), quickly followed by pharmaceuticals & biotech (14 percent), and hospitals (9 percent) trailing behind the top 5.

Some other interesting findings:

On innovation and technology, general consumer perceptions are as follows:

91 percent of consumers believe that innovation will positively impact health care over the next five years.

90 percent of respondents say that technology will have a positive impact on their health in the future.

70 percent believe that technology will have the biggest impact in helping them personally manage their own health.nology

Top five technologies predicted to have the biggest impact on people’s health in next five years:

- Health and fitness wearables (21 percent)

- Robotics (15 percent)

- 3D printing (10 percent)

- Smart home devices (9 percent)

- Artificial intelligence (9 percent)

The survey reflects a shift in the consumer mindset from being passive recipients of healthcare to more active and autonomous individuals who appear eager to try more creative and innovative approaches to managing their health.

Another study reflects a similar perception:

Similar negative perception gets reflected in the January 17, 2017 Harris Poll, which reported only nine percent of American consumers believe that pharma and biotechnology drug makers put patients over profits.

January 17, 2017 Harris Poll, while comparing consumers’ perception among different entities in the health care space, found that only insurers have an overall worse reputation than the pharmaceutical industry.

An important area worth exploring:

When consumers do not perceive the pharma industry as innovative as the sector wishes to be, what could possibly be its reasons? While that could be a part of another discussion, it is worth exploring another important area in this article – Do the majority of global pharma CEOs have desired background to lead innovation?

Do the majority of global pharma CEOs have desired background to lead innovation?

This is yet another interesting question. A research article titled “Many CEOs Aren’t Breakthrough Innovators (and That’s OK)”, published in the Harvard Business Review on September 04, 2015 discussed this issue, well-supported by some interesting research data, while coming to a logical conclusion.

The authors indicated that they looked at the background and performance data of 297 CEOs leading the largest companies in three different industries which are widely regarded as innovative: pharmaceuticals, high-tech, and fashion retail. The data captured a 20-year period, from 1995 to 2014 (and includes both current and former CEOs).

The study highlighted, though innovation is widely regarded as important to long-term business performance, CEOs of big pharmaceutical companies, are more likely to have a background as company lawyers, salespeople, or finance managers than in medicine or pharma R&D.

A direct comparison of the same, with the other two industries in the study, which are also widely regarded as innovative, vindicates the above point, as illustrated in the following table:

CEO Background	Pharma (%) (85 CEOs)	High-tech (%) (137 CEOs)	Fashion Retail (%) (75 CEOs)
Specialist background to lead innovation	26	61	60
Industry experience in other management function, e.g. Sales, Production	48	33	29
Background in support functions, e.g. Finance, Legal	26	6	11

In this study, the researchers found that, for pharmaceutical industry CEOs, there is a statistically significant relationship between a CEO’s specialist background and the firm’s performance. A specialist background to lead innovation is worth a 4 percent better shareholder return every year for 20 years, compared to other pharma CEOs in their sample.

Innovations are mostly ‘me-too’, so is the consumer perception:

As the above article reiterates, shorter patent lives of prescription drugs mean companies must continually look for not just any new drugs to fill their pipelines, but more often with breakthrough ones, which are significantly better than what’s already on the market.

Further, the article titled “How to Revive Breakthrough Innovation in the Pharmaceutical Industry”, which is linked to publications on ResearchGate, also indicates, over more than two decades, therapeutics discoveries of pharmaceutical companies more often than not yielded compounds that are only marginally better than existing therapies, rather than breakthrough molecules.

This could well be another contributing factor in the general ‘not so positive’ consumer perception about the global pharma industry, today.

Conclusion:

There may not be a hell of a lot of argument on the fact that the drug industry has a consumer perception problem today. Even the August 2016 Gallup Poll rated pharma as one of the worst industries in the current times.

Is the collective internal effort of continuously trying to associate innovation with the global pharma industry, the right answer for the same? May be, may well be not, though, the global drug industry is incessantly trying to project, as if ‘innovation’ is its middle name, as it were.

Is it working? The obvious answer is available from various recent research studies, as enumerated above. Still, in January 2017, reportedly to rescue the image of its member companies, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, unveiled a campaign, again basically focusing on innovation, called “Go Boldly.” It reportedly tries to communicate that the pharma industry develops life-saving medicines, and that they help keep medical costs down, because new medicines often reduce hospital stays and chronic illnesses. Is the campaign cost intensive? – Of course, yes. Is it productive? – possibly not. But who cares?

Be that as it may, today’s health care consumers perceive the global pharma industry neither as innovative nor caring, despite all its efforts. Thus, there is an important need for the pharma players to effectively bridge this perception gap in different and more innovative ways.

However, all that one can witness today, is the global pharma industry charting the same beaten path, yet again – with no further innovation in its communication – neither in content nor in its delivery platforms. That said, only time will be able to tell, whether similar efforts, renewed again and again, can reverse the consumer perception on pharma – making it seen as highly innovative and a caring industry for all.

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.

Define And Adapt To Reality: Two Pivotal Pharma Leadership Skills For Sustainable Excellence

Posted on April 10, 2017 by Tapan Ray

Max DePree – a much quoted American businessman and author had once said: “The first responsibility of a leader is to define reality.”

While defining the reality within the drug industry today, it makes many industry leaders to ponder, despite so much of the good work done by the industry in various fields of pharma business, across the world, including India, why is the public perception on the overall leadership of this sector still so negative, and continue going south? Pharma leaders know the reasons too, but they seem to be still searching for the right set of answers without breaking the traditional mold of business.

Around end 2007, being concerned with this trend, the then Chairman of Eli Lilly reportedly expressed publicly what many industry observers have been saying privately for some time. He said: “I think the industry is doomed, if we don’t change”.

On the general apathy of breaking the traditional mold after having defined the business reality, an interesting article titled, “Healthcare Leadership Must Shift From A Cottage Industry To Big Business”, published on June 2, 2014 in Forbes, made some interesting observations, which are as relevant to India, just as many other countries of the world.

The article states that the ‘Healthcare Leadership’ has not kept up with the industry’s evolution to big business over the past 25-30 years – nor does it possess the required change management competencies to effectively lead and rapidly turn around an adaptive health care business model. Thus, unlike many other knowledge industries, pharma sector is still struggling hard to convert the tough environmental challenges into bright business opportunities. This leads to an important question: Being mostly inward looking, are these leaders failing to properly define reality around them, and therefore, not adapting to the critical external business environmental needs, soon enough?

Is current pharma leadership too inward looking?

From the available details, it appears that today, many inward-looking pharma leaders tend to ignore many serious voices demanding access to high quality medicines at affordable prices, especially for life threatening ailments, such as, cancer. Instead of engaging with the stakeholders in search of a win-win solution, global pharma leadership apparently tries to push the ball out its court with a barrage of mundane and arrogant arguments highlighting the importance of ‘drug innovation’ and hyping how expensive it is. Notwithstanding that by now, many people are aware of its frequent use, generally by the global pharma players, mostly as a veil, whenever required. Even then, many pharma leaders, instead of accepting the reality, continue to remain insensitive to the concerns not just of most patients, but other stakeholders and their respective governments also. This mindset further reinforces their inward-looking and self-serving image. This brings to the fore the key issue: Is this high time to pass the baton to a new breed of pharma leaders?

In the above backdrop, this article dwells on some intrinsic issues involved with the leadership puzzle of the industry, as it were. Thereafter, it deliberates on the importance of making some easy self-tests available to the young and especially the millennial pharma professionals, to facilitate them to self-discover themselves in this space, and that too at an early stage of their professional career, as they try to understand and define the business and environmental realities facing the industry.

Leadership skills are difficult to find:

Focusing on the pharma industry, I would say, especially in the pharma sector, leadership skill in all its functional areas though is considered as the most important one, but are equally challenging while identifying the right persons.

The 20^th Pharma CEO Survey, March 2017 of PwC, vindicates this point. The survey covered 89 pharma CEOs from 37 countries. Nearly all the Pharma CEOs participating in this survey picked out leadership as the most important for their organization, giving it the top spot, closely followed by problem-solving, creativity and innovation, all bracketed in the second, with collaboration and adaptability occupying the equal third rank, as follows:

Relative importance of skills in pharma industry	Skill sets	Respondents answering somewhat difficult or very difficult to get each one of these
1.	Leadership	79
2.	Creativity & Innovation	75
3.	Emotional intelligence	72
4.	Adaptability	63
5.	Problem-solving	55

Over two-thirds of the CEOs face difficulty in recruiting people with the requisite skills that they consider most important to their organization, such as, leadership, problem-solving, and creative skills, the report highlighted. For further deliberation hereunder, I shall pick up the top one – the leadership skill for the pharma industry, as I see it.

The age-old question – ‘Are leaders born or made?’

A critical question that is often asked even today – ‘Are leaders born or made?’ The question keeps coming as some enthusiasts continue to argue that successful leaders are born with visible or apparently invisible leadership traits.

Are leaders born?

To answer this question, let me quote an example. The Management Study Guide (MSG), well-articulated an approach to the study of leadership known as the ‘Great Man Theory’, giving examples of the great leaders of the past, such as, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Queen Elizabeth I, Abraham Lincoln and Mahatma Gandhi. They all seem to differ from ordinary human beings in several aspects, possessing high levels of ambition coupled with clear visions of precisely where they want to go.

Added to these examples are many top business executives, sports personalities, and even contemporary politicians, who often seem to possess an aura that sets them apart from others. These persons are cited as naturally great leaders, born with a set of personal qualities that made them effective leaders. Thus, even today, the belief that truly great leaders are born, is not uncommon. Thus, according to the contemporary theorists, leaders are not like other people. They do not need to be intellectually genius or omniscient prophets to succeed, but they should certainly have the ‘right stuff’, which is not equally present in all people, MSG highlights.

Even today, some continue to believe in the ‘Great Man Theory’, regardless of many well carried out research studies of the behavioral scientists establishing that it is quite possible for individuals becoming leaders through various processes, such as, self-learning, keenly observing or working with some good leaders, following their advices, training, and practicing the experiences thus gained in one’s real life.

Are leaders made?

Just as above, to answer this question, as well, I would cite another important example.

A September 21, 2016 article titled, “What Science Tells Us About Leadership Potential”, published in the ‘Harvard Business Review (HBR)’, while answering the question ‘who becomes a leader’, stated as follows:

“Any observable pattern of human behaviors is the byproduct of genetic and environmental influences, so the answer to this question is ‘both’. Estimates suggest that leadership is 30%-60% heritable, largely because the character traits that shape leadership - personality and intelligence - are heritable. While this suggests strong biological influences on leadership, it does not imply that nurture is trivial. Even more-heritable traits, such as weight (80%) and height (90%), are affected by environmental factors. Although there is no clear recipe for manipulating the environment in order to boost leadership potential, well-crafted coaching interventions boost critical leadership competencies by about 20%–30%.”

What would a young pharma professional do in this situation?

The current breed of top leaders would continue grooming and promoting mostly those who fit their profile, while in the family owned businesses succession usually takes place from within the family. The situation is no different in the pharma industry. However, various studies indicate that millennial professionals with leadership traits will develop themselves.

Keeping this in mind and, at the same time, going by the above HBR article, I would tend to accept the dictum that, “Any observable pattern of human behaviors is the byproduct of genetic and environmental influences”. Thus, for identifying and then honing leadership skills in the pharma business, just as many other industries, I would prefer the process of dovetailing the heritable leadership traits with various environmental influences.

An ambitious pharma professional with high aspiration to make a difference in the organization that the individual represents, would obviously wonder what the way forward for him to achieve the goals. In my view, an honest self-test is the first and basic move in this direction.

The self-test:

Taking a cue from the article titled “Strategic Leadership: The Essential Skills”, published in the January-February 2013 issue of The Harvard Business Review (HBR), I would suggest that the young professionals may wish to ask themselves the following important questions:

Do I have the right networks to help myself see opportunities before competitors do?
Am I comfortable challenging my own and others’ assumptions?
Can I get a diverse group to buy into a common vision?
Do I learn from mistakes?

The answer to each of these ones should be clear and honest, as one doesn’t need to disclose those answers to anyone else. Nonetheless, by following this process, a young professional gets a clear view of where he or she stands in each of these important areas, which cover some of the basic traits of a leader.

The leadership package:

Irrespective of whether an individual has some heritable leadership traits or not, the above self-test would reveal a person’s strengths and weaknesses, help address the deficits and optimize the full portfolio of leadership skills, independently or otherwise.

Nevertheless, it is important to bear in mind, as several research studies have already established, though leadership skills are important and difficult to find, a few other salient skills such as, ability to apply in real life a creative and innovative mindset, supported by high emotional intelligence or emotional quotient (EQ) are also critical. This is because, together these offer the all-important leadership package for an all-round successful leader.

Should pharma leadership be eclectic?

I guess so, as there does not seem to be any better alternative either. Thus, I reckon, traditional pharma leadership needs to be eclectic. It has still got a lot to learn from other industries too. Let me give a relevant example here – to speed up development of electric cars by all manufacturers, the Cofounder and Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk of Tesla Motors has reportedly decided to share its patents under ‘Open Source’ sharing of technologies with all others. Elon Musk further reiterated: “If we clear a path to the creation of compelling electric vehicles, but then lay Intellectual property (IP) landmines behind us to inhibit others, we are acting in a manner contrary to that goal.”

In the important ‘green’ automobile space, this is indeed a radical, gutsy and an exemplary decision to underscore Tesla Motor’s concern about global warming.

Why such type of leadership is so rare in the global pharma world, even today? Besides sanctimonies, as these appear, why the global pharma leaders are not taking similar large scale initiatives for drug innovation, especially in the areas of difficult diseases, such as, Cancer, Alzheimer’s, Multiple Sclerosis and Metabolic disorders, just to name a few? For this purpose, pharma organizations would require mettlesome change agents who can break the traditional mold –new leaders of the millennial generation having a different business outlook altogether, could possibly do so.

Becoming a change agent:

Today, more than ever before, the ultimate goal of pharma leaders requires moving beyond making more money to satisfy the shareholders and stock markets. It also needs to include the requirements of society, in general, more than what mandatory CSR demands. This is palpable today, as many stakeholders vehemently questioning the business game plan of many pharma players. Would this situation change? I don’t know, but it should, which prompts a change in the overall quality of pharma leadership, at all levels. I have had reason to believe that a good number of bright, millennial pharma professionals look for empowerment to discover themselves early. Right at that stage, they also need to chart a road map for self-development, which would facilitate attaining their professional goals, quite in sync with the broad societal expectations, as they move on in life.

New pharma leadership would require greater focus on ethics and engagement:

While pharma industry leaders, in general, have been impressive articulators of all right things that need to happen, ‘Talking the Talk’ and ‘Walking the Walk’ in the frontiers of business ethics, values and shared goals are found wanting in many of them. These articulations are probably used to run expensive global ‘Public Relations (PR)’ campaigns, lobbying and advocacy initiatives in the corridors of power.

What else then could possibly be the reason for such perception gap that this great industry has allowed to increase, over a long period of time? Could it be that many pharma leaders have not been able to adequately adapt themselves to the demands of the changing healthcare environment and the needs of various stakeholders in this sector? Is the leadership, therefore, too archaic and it’s a time for a change?

Thus, unlike the current pharma leadership, the new age leadership needs to be ethically grounded, and engage all stakeholders effectively in a transparent manner with impeccable processes of governance involving all areas of business. Such leaders may not be know-all individuals in the pharma business, but must possess a clear vision of where they want to lead the company to, and don’t slip back, especially in terms of public image and meeting patients’ expectations.

In conclusion:

Pharma business in modern times faces rapidly changing stakeholder expectations, which are generally difficult to predict well in advance. Thus, today’s pharma leaders require to adapt their strategic approach and the tactical game plans accordingly for business excellence in an inclusive manner, and simultaneously try to shape the environment to the extent possible.

There is a growing expectation from the pharma leaders to do business by imbibing a caring outlook towards the society, where it operates. Spending time and money to transplant the past practices in the changed environment, or continuing with the traditional business approaches, I reckon, is a no-win game today.

Thus, there arises a need to help the young pharma professionals, from the early stages in their professional life, for shaping up as the chief change agent in the organization that they would lead. Even after reaching where they wanted to reach, these leaders should keep studying on a continuous basis, various other successful leadership styles, approaches and visions, to splice them into a more productive strategic approach for the business or functional areas that they lead.

This new breed of leaders would also require defining the reality prevailing in the industry on an ongoing basis, to pave the way for a glorious future for their respective organizations. This effort would call for regular and effective engagement with all the stakeholders through various digital and other platforms. The critical question that the new pharma leadership should never forget to continually ask themselves: “How can my organization provide better access to high quality and effective medicines to most patients along with achieving commercial excellence in business?”

Properly defining and quickly adapting to associated environmental realities with a creative mind, requisite emotional intelligence and ethical business practices, would call for coming out of the zone of comfort with promptness. These, I reckon, would be the two pivotal success factors for new pharma leaders for inclusive and sustainable success in business, as the industry moves on.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Dwindling Drug Innovation: Declining Image: Unchanged Business And Advocacy Models

Posted on February 20, 2017 by Tapan Ray

A report of ‘The United States International Trade Commission (USITC)’ released on December 22, 2014 suggested, if tariffs and investment restrictions were fully eliminated, and standards of IP protection were made comparable to the U.S and Western European levels, American exports to India would rise by two-thirds.

A year later, on February 01, 2015 an interesting news article highlighted that the flashpoint of this issue “has clearly been pharmaceutical companies and their lobby group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), which have made some of the strongest representations to the US government against India’s IPR regime.” The same report also indicated that many other companies including the aircraft maker Boeing and the generic drug giant Abbott felt that India offered adequate IP protection and that they had not experienced major IP problems in the country.

The above stance of USITC continued echoing right from the beginning of this year. In January 2017, the CEO of US Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) reportedly told our Prime Minister Narendra Modi, ‘if he follows western practices on intellectual property protection, his country would see a “tidal wave” of biotech industry investment.’

On February 08, 2017, when the fifth edition of ‘U.S. Chamber International IP Index’ report was released by the ‘Global Intellectual Property Center (GIPC)’, India featured in the 43^rd rank out of 45 countries. With this India remained virtually at the bottom of the IP index for the fourth year on the trot. The GIPC report underscored India’s “anaemic IPR policy”, Section 3.d of the Indian Patents Act, besides several others, as major market access barriers.

On February 14, 2017, another news article reported that America’s pharma sector has asked the US Trade Representative (USTR) to continue to keep India on its Priority Watch List (PWL), which includes countries that are alleged violators of US patent laws, claiming that the environment on the ground remains ‘challenging’ in India. Among the areas of concern for the US pharma companies operating in India, unpredictable IP environment, high tariffs and taxes on medicines, regulatory data protection failure, discriminatory and non-transparent market access policies and unpredictable environment for clinical research were listed among others.

With this backdrop, the key question that haunts many industry watchers, when the World Trade Organization (WTO) has no complaint with the Indian Patents Act 2005, and finds it TRIPS compliant, why are these reports coming from the United States consistently emphasizing that the current IP regime of the country is a key barrier to market access, especially for research-based pharma companies?

Is the core issue of the global pharma industry in India is predominantly not encouraging innovation well enough, or the dearth of inadequate Intellectual Property (IP) protection – or it is something beyond that, and is more fundamental in nature. In this article, I shall dwell in this area, first in the global perspective, and then zeroing-in to India.

A global perspective:

“The past 60 years have seen huge advances in many of the scientific, technological and managerial factors that should tend to raise the efficiency of commercial drug research and development (R&D). Yet the number of new drugs approved per billion US dollars spent on R&D has halved roughly every 9 years since 1950, falling around 80-fold in inflation-adjusted terms. There have been many proposed solutions to the problem of declining R&D efficiency. However, their apparent lack of impact so far and the contrast between improving inputs and declining output in terms of the number of new drugs make it sensible to ask whether the underlying problems have been correctly diagnosed,” articulated an important article published on March 01, 2012 in the Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

This trend continues, virtually unchanged. R&D efficiency continues to remain a cause of great concern to the research-based global pharmaceutical companies. Accordingly, a 2016 report of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions titled, ‘Measuring the return of pharmaceutical innovation’, among other findings, has captured the following:

Annual projected pharma R&D return declines to 3.7 percent from 10.1 percent in 2010
Peak sales per asset fall 11.4 percent year-on-year since 2010

What then is its basic solution?

When the right solution eludes:

In this scenario, when the right solution is still eluding, to record growth in corporate profit and earning to meet shareholders’ expectations, keeping the existing business model intact, the global research-based pharma companies have the following two limited options, which they are actively pursuing:

Take high price increases for the existing products
Launch the limited new products at a very high price

A report published in The First Word Pharma on October 06, 2015 quoting The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) vindicated exercising the first option. It reported that many drug makers have succeeded in increasing revenue on products despite a flat or declining demand by consistently increasing prices. An analysis revealed that revenue for the top 30 products in the United States zoomed by 61 percent over the past five years, three times the increase in the number of prescriptions sold over that period. While another report by Credit Suisse illustrated that 80 percent of the growth in net profit for the top 20 drug makers was attributable to price hikes.

To substantiate application of the second option, I quote from the CBS News, which on April 05, 2016 reported that an investigation into the cost of prescription drugs revealed huge price hikes over the past five years. Several brand name medications more than doubled in price. Again, on August 24, 2016, it gave a sense of this trend with the following examples, covering the launch price of innovative drug, and price increases of generic drugs:

Gilead fixed their new hepatitis C drug Sovaldi’s cost at US$ 900 – 1,000 per pill
Mylan Pharmaceuticals’ increased the cost of its anti-allergic drug EpiPen from about US$ 57 in 2007 to more than US$ 500 in 2016
Turing Pharmaceuticals increased the price of the anti-malaria drug Daraprim by 5,000 percent last year, charging US$ 750 per pill for a drug that used to cost US$ 13.50 per pill.

PhRMA – the often quoted trade association in America, representing the country’s leading pharma and bio-pharmaceutical research-based companies, reportedly said in a statement: “Focusing solely on the list prices of medicines is misleading because it ignores the significant discounts and rebates negotiated by insurers and pharmacy benefit managers.”

Even if, this argument is accepted as such, the tough impact of regular hefty drug price increases on the consumers is real, unquestionably.

The current business model leaves behind many patients:

The ‘Access to Medicine Index 2016’ report also finds that companies generally do not systematically target populations with the highest needs in their registration, pricing and licensing actions. Although, we continue to make progress toward major public health goals, such as, polio is close to being eradicated, as is guinea worm; more than 45 percent of people living with HIV/AIDS have access to ARVs; important vaccines for malaria and dengue fever are being implemented, still business models for providing healthcare are leaving many people behind. Globally, two billion people cannot access the medicines they need, most of whom live hand to mouth.

Particularly, the big global pharma companies, as the innovators and producers of life-saving medicines, need to act much earlier in the patients’ value chain. Without or inadequate action by these companies, alongside governments, NGOs and others, it will be impossible to bring modern medicine to everyone.

Public outrage over high drug prices:

Many studies indicate that the research-based global pharma and biotech companies, still strive hard to stick to their existing overall business models with a sharp focus on improving both the top and bottom lines of the business, though the R&D projects are becoming lesser and lesser productive. This prompts them resorting to hefty price increases, and introducing new products with high price. Fueled by this self-serving mindset, a simmering public outrage, globally, over high drug prices is fast catching up, further undermining the trust in the industry, as another report says.

No wonder why in the Gallup Poll of August 15, 2016, pharmaceutical industry featured just one above the bottom among the ‘Worst-Rated U.S. Business Sectors’. Moreover, even the Harris Poll released on January 17, 2017 found that 91 percent of U.S. consumers believe pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies put profits over patients.

The industry continues chasing rainbows:

In response to this mounting stakeholders’ criticism, arguably the richest pharma association in the world in its member subscriptions – PhRMA, reportedly launched a new ad campaign costing tens of millions of dollars on January 25, 2017. It aims to highlight innovation and scientific breakthroughs to change the public’s negative perception of the industry. This campaign will span across television, print, digital, and radio, the report elaborates.

Following is an example, as reported, listing three important and interesting comments on this campaign for pharma image revamp from some of those who matter:

Lawmaker Peter Welch, who chairs the House Democratic Caucus’ task force on drug pricing, said, “The issue here is not whether drugs have some benefits … The issue is whether pharma is going to be able to kill us with their pricing power or whether we will get transparency and competition.” He added, “The campaign is all about defending their pricing power and pushing their product.”

Similarly, another lawmaker Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said, “This is [PhRMA] trying to change the subject and to try and divert people’s attention away from drug pricing. Continuing to ignore drug pricing is probably not going to work.”

Ameet Sarpatwari, a drug pricing policy researcher at Harvard University said, “It’s really a matter of being tone deaf in terms of thinking somehow that this is going to change public perception”

Isn’t a great example of chasing rainbows by the industry association, in the number one pharma and biotech market of the world, instead of amending to the root cause of this burning issue?

The situation in India:

In this backdrop, amid a tough global situation, let me assess the related Indian scenario.

The research-based global pharma companies, apparently want to introduce the whole range of their patented products at a high price and in a monopolistic situation in India too, for much higher growth in revenue and profits. Thus, they are consistently pushing hard, with all guns blazing, for major changes in the Indian Patents Act 2005, which would involve jettisoning many patients’ health interest related safeguard conditions enshrined in the Act, such as Section 3.d that restricts ever-greening of patents, and introducing several other tougher IP measures, such as data exclusivity under the garb of imaginary patient safety issues with generic drugs.

They don’t seem to like price control of essential drugs in India, either. While intensely lobbying for it, the lobbyists vehemently argue in favor of the absurd, which is the affordability of medicines does not help to increase drug access to all those who need these most, even when on the ground, the out of pocket expenses for drugs in the country is as high as around 65 percent and universal health care does exist in the country, much to the dismay of many.

It has now been generally established by many global experts, including our own National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) that market competition does not necessarily bring down drug prices, including for generics, quite unlike many other industries, but various pressure groups, including the media, can catalyze it, and quite effectively. What has happened recently with the cardiac stents price in the country, is just an example.

Is the devil in the traditional pharma business model?

An article titled, “How Pharma Can Fix Its Reputation and Its Business at the Same Time”, published on February 03, 2017 in The Harvard Business Review, emphatically states: “It’s a fact that the current business model of pharma companies is not working efficiently.” It suggests, besides enhancing the current unenviable public image of the industry, expanding access to medicines will help pharma companies enhance shareholder value. The success of a new business model depends on both the willingness and the ability of pharmaceutical companies to fully integrate access to medicine into their business strategies, the article emphasizes.

A July 2015 paper of McKinsey & Company titled, “Pharma’s next challenge”, also reiterates that in the developed economies, market access is chiefly concerned with pricing, and with satisfying local conditions. Whereas, in the emerging markets, to overcome the barriers, pharma players need to shift the focus of their commercial models from marketing and sales to access, and from brand-by-brand access planning to integrated cross-brand planning.

In pursuit of a new model:

Based on the above premises, the search for a new pharma business model, especially for the research-based pharma companies, in my view, may broadly focus on the following areas:

Learn from innovation models of the IT industry: Win-Win collaborative innovation models, including ‘Open Source Drug Discovery’, if scaled up, could reduce the cost of innovation significantly and making the new innovative drugs generally affordable. Thus, larger volume sales may adequately offset a voluntary cut in the product margin, creating a multiplier effect.

Be a part of the solution and not the problem: Because of fiercely pushing the blatant self-serving agenda, inconveniencing many patients, the core mindset of the pharma industry is considered by many as an integral part of the main problem. While pharma industry, quite rightly, seek more market access, they need to act as a facilitator too, to improve general access to medicines, in various imaginative ways, which is, of course, possible. This will make the pharma industry to be a part of the solution to the national problem, over a period of time.

Walk the talk: While pharma industry speaks all right things, in terms of ethical conduct of business, at a time when both national and international media frequently expose their gross wrongdoings. This continues, unabated. Sales and marketing functions are indeed very important, but not at the cost of good corporate governance. I am aware, all compliance rules exist immaculately on paper for many companies, but the senior management officials should demonstrate that they walk the talk, giving exemplary punishment to the wrongdoers, including their peers.

Change the current advocacy model: The current advocacy model of the research-based pharma companies is too self-serving. For example, in India it mostly demands, which is bordering obsession, to change the IP laws of a sovereign country, when the World Trade Organization (WTO) has no problem with these, whatsoever. There is a need for them to demonstrate, sans any shade of arrogance, visible respect to any country’s general sentiment on its Patents Act, as it’s their own decision to operate in those countries. An imaginative win-win change in this area, would significantly help to create a strong bond and mutual respect with other important stakeholders.

Are senior citizens in pharma business a barrier to change?

A recent white paper of ‘Eye for Pharma’, says in its conclusion “many of those now running pharma organizations have come through the ‘golden age’ of pharma and so may be reluctant to change”. Does this issue need to be addressed first by the Independent Directors of the respective Boards of the pharma companies?

In conclusion:

Many questions do spring up while addressing this issue. One common belief is that, pharma industry, in general, is reluctant to change its traditional business model, beyond just tweaking, despite declining overall productivity and in its public image.

In advocacy initiatives, while drawing stakeholders’ attention to the core grievance agenda, though they try hard to project their business focus on patients, especially using the buzzwords, such as, ‘patient centric approach’ or ‘patient engagement’, among many others, has anything visibly changed, just yet?

As the business environment is getting tougher and consumer expectations are fast changing, drug innovation is also steadily dwindling, so is the declining industry image. However, pharma business and advocacy models continue to remain mostly unchanged. It remains intriguing, why are the ‘wise guys’ of pharma business still so deeply obsessed with chasing rainbows, with so much of zeal, hectic activity and money, while majority of patients keeps bearing the brunt?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Pharma In 2016 Rio Olympics

Posted on August 29, 2016 by Tapan Ray

On August 4, 2016, the ‘Adweek’ – a well-known weekly American advertising-trade publication, reported that even a day before the games began, the national ad sales revenue of just one major network in ‘2016 Rio Olympics’ had set a new record for itself, exceeding a never before turnover of US$ 1.2 billion. This figure is believed to be the most of any network for any media event in the history of the United States, and includes broadcast, cable and digital advertising.

The strongest advertising categories include automotive, beverages, telecommunications, insurance, movie studios and pharmaceuticals, as the advertisers were exceptionally bullish on Rio Games, the report highlighted.

Another report, published in the August 9, 2016 edition of ‘U. S. News’, states that the Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton also aired US$ 13.6 million in campaign commercials during this Olympic games, far exceeding her nearest rival, seeking to reach the millions of television viewers who can’t skip past the commercials as they watch live coverage of the Olympics. This example underscores the perceived importance of Olympic events to various types and genres of advertisers.

My article will focus on this new found interest of many global pharma companies, their level of participation, with an idea of approximate expenditure to be incurred to run various types of ad campaigns in such well-awaited global events, held once in every four years.

The key advantages and the potential:

One of the key advantages of advertisements during Olympic games is their much larger captive audience and eyeball grabbing power, in every respect, both global and local. This, in turn, offers an attractive opportunity to the advertisers to exploit its immense potential for shaping and re-shaping public opinion and preferences, on various target areas.

Probably for this reason, a wider spectrum of new advertisers, including pharma players have now started favoring this event more than ever before.

Entry of pharma:

According to available reports, about 20 pharma brands and companies ran 293 TV ads during the coverage of Rio Olympic games. Some of these companies ran brand advertisements, while some others selected non-brand disease awareness campaigns, or in a very few instances – both.

According to real time TV ad tracker iSpot.tv, pharma contributed US$ 45 million and occupied the mid-space of the table for blockbuster TV advertisers, during the 17-day Rio events.

Two types of marketing strategies followed:

In Rio Olympics pharma companies had opted for primarily two different types of marketing strategies, as follows:

Product branding
Corporate branding, mainly through disease awareness

Global majors such as, Pfizer (for pain management – Lyrica and anti-inflammatory – Xeljanz), Novo Nordisk (Antidiabetic – Victoza), Bayer and Johnson & Johnson (anticoagulant – Xarelto) and Lundbeck and Takeda (antidepressant – Trintellix), appeared to be brand focused.

Whereas, companies such as, Merck and Mylan were disease awareness focused. Pfizer seemingly opted for both product branding and R&D focused corporate branding.

‘Product Branding’ versus ‘Corporate Branding’:

Product branding is defined as a marketing strategy wherein a business promotes and markets an individual product without the company name being at the center in the advertising campaigns.

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

The success parameters:

A product branding is considered successful when it pushes up both the top and the bottom lines of the brand, with a commensurate increase in its top of mind recall and market share.

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

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

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

Those who kept away from hard selling of a brand:

In Rio Olympics, as stated above, according to recent reports, some large pharma companies, interestingly, preferred to keep themselves away from hard selling of any of their brands. They, on the contrary, chose to make use of this powerful event to facilitate much wider public engagement with important and interesting health issues, like disease awareness, through craftily produced TV clips. The key intent is, of course, enhancing their corporate image to the public at large, for sustainable and long term business excellence.

A few such examples, as witnessed during Rio Olympics, are as follows:

Merck ran an eyeball grabbing, top class and emotional disease awareness ad for HPV vaccinations.

Mylan ran its “Face Your Risk” ad. This clip advises people with allergens to talk to their doctor about a prescription treatment for severe reactions, because every six minutes, someone with life-threatening food allergies is sent to the hospital.

Pfizer, in addition to brand promotion, also ran an interesting, yet fact based campaign, titled “Before it Became a Medicine”. This ad narrates an emotive story of bringing a medicine to life, which is no different from any other process of creation. It requires innovation, imagination, and restless perseverance in the face of obstacles, both expected and unforeseen.

One is a double-edged sword:

Strong high profile brand promotion in the global events such as Rio Olympics, could well be perceived as a double edged sword, having both the up and the downsides.

The upside is of course a strong boost in the sales and profit of the concerned brands. However, there is also a significant downside. When the details of huge pharma marketing expenditure, just on TV ads and also for only a 17- day event though important, would come to public knowledge, it could add more fuel to the fire on the ongoing public criticism towards humongous marketing expenditure, incurred by some pharma players, which at times exceeds the same for even R&D.

This is important, as a very large number of different stakeholders, including the patients, firmly believe that such ‘unnecessary’ expenditures on brand marketing, are ultimately passed on to the final consumers or the payers in terms of high pricing of those brands. Whereas, the possibility of triggering such type negative public opinion, with similar ads and during the similar events, with corporate brand or disease awareness campaigns, I guess, would be rather slim or improbable.

Let me hasten to add, I strongly believe that sales and marketing are absolutely necessary for pharma brands, just as any other branded consumer durables or non-durables. Nevertheless, I would also not brazenly ignore the prevailing reality, and the public optics associated with this sensitive issue, in any way.

How much does it cost?

To answer this question, I would try to give just a feel of the type of deep pocket that an interested pharma advertiser would require to have to get involved on such interesting ball game. During Rio Olympic games, the top three high spending pharma brands, reportedly, were as follows:

Pfizer (the pain medication Lyrica): US$ 9.1 million
Pfizer (the anti-inflammatory Xeljanz): US$ 5.7 million
Novo Nordisk (GLP-1 diabetes treatment Victoza, which featured Olympic gold medal basketball player Dominque Wilkins): US$ 9.2 million

It is worth noting that the top spending brands for consumer product such as Chrysler, spent US$ 25 million on one commercial, along with US$ 15.2 million on another. Similarly, Samsung spent US$ 17.1 million on one ad and US$ 12 million on another one.

Is there any right approach?

Instead of trying to pontificate on what sort of approach is right or wrong for pharma companies in these global events, I would only elucidate, what type of marketing approach could possibly be able to create and leave a stronger and long term residual impact on the viewers’ mind, considering the prevailing global scenario and the general sentiment towards the pharma companies, in general.

I reckon, in the events like the Olympics, it is possible for a pharma player to reap a rich harvest and get a long-term dividend with media outreach, carefully keeping away from hard-selling of clearly identifiable brands. The well-created campaigns may focus primarily on the softer aspects of public health care, such as, caring for patients, disease awareness, making life more enjoyable while fighting a disease, bringing newer drugs for better life, or even achievements in the space of corporate social responsibility.

Conclusion:

Global events such as Rio Olympics, could be well leveraged by the individual pharma players, especially to revamp the generally declining public image for greater overall business predictability and sustainability.

The types of corporate branding that some of us had witnessed in Rio Olympics, have the potential to significantly help achieving this objective.

The realization of the fast declining negative public image of pharma, in general, appears to have dawned on its global trade organizations only now. This has indeed been a long saga, though many pharma players still ignore it, rather unabashedly.

The broader impact of the creation of a positive and robust corporate public image with direct connects with consumers through the relevant ads such as on diseases awareness, could be profound, also for a sustainable business growth, even in a country like India.

Thus, the entry of pharma companies in the widely viewed global events, such as the 2016 Rio Olympics, unravels yet another new strategic platform for many other players. Its multiple judicial use, in tandem with other business blueprints, could facilitate the industry to effectively neutralize and navigate through the strong headwind of negative public perception, while managing the challenge of change.

By: Tapan J. Ray

2015: Pharma Industry Achieved Some, Could Achieve Some More

Posted on January 4, 2016 by Tapan Ray

Wish You And All Your Near And Dear Ones Peace, Happiness, Good Health And Prosperity in The Brand New Year 2016

The year 2015 witnessed several noteworthy developments in the pharma industry, just as many other years before. That said, in my view, a few of these happenings were much more impactful, and probably took place for the first time ever, in the year just gone by.

Obviously, one such major development is the overall serious adverse impact on the image of the pharma industry, in general.

During 2015, the image of the pharma industry got further tarnished by reports of high-profile alleged drug price manipulations. This avoidable saga culminated with the arrest of a pharma Chief Executive Officer (CEO) in the United States, amid a federal investigation, in December 2015.

However, I am not going to dwell on this issue in this article. Instead, I shall select some key strategic pharma business areas, which contribute to the largest chunk of the total overall cost, incurred by the global pharma industry, every year. These areas, as I see, are:

Drug discovery research
Sales and Marketing
Supply Chain
Development of new drug delivery systems
Patients care and engagements

I have put all these points in the above order, just for the convenience of my discussion in this article.

With a few examples, I shall give my perspective on these areas of the global pharma industry, dividing them broadly into the following two sub-categories:

Areas where the industry could have done a lot better
Areas where the industry made significant progress

The Pharma industry strategy continues to remain broadly traditional:

Pharma sector is globally considered as an industry, which appears to be more comfortable in maintaining and harnessing its traditional approaches, in almost all its field of activities. Although, some tweaking has certainly been taking place, which are primarily to automate or digitalize the same process, aimed at adding more speed together with virtually real time monitoring of operations.

Let me hasten to add here that, some major and newer types of modern tech based collaborative initiatives with large companies outside the pure pharma space, have also been reported, during the year.

I shall deliberate on both these areas, one after another, hereunder.

A. Areas where the industry could have done a lot better:

Drug discovery research:

With the increasing impact of patent cliff and low productivity in drug discovery research, coming alongside big ticket generic threats, many pharma players seem to be still tweaking with its traditional blockbuster drug discovery model, in 2015.

Slightly changing from this traditional strategic focus, many of them have now started focusing more on ‘Orphan Drug’ research, though with indication of a life threatening disease with low prevalence, intending to go whole hog for very high pricing of these drugs.

By gradually adding more indications, these innovator companies plan to make the ‘Orphan drug’ molecule a money churning blockbuster drug. As a result, the number of venture capitalists, who invest in the early stages of such drug development, has increased significantly in 2015.

According to reports, over 40 percent of all approved orphan drugs are meant for high risk cancer sub-categories with low prevalence rate. Although these drugs are for lifetime treatment, the medicines are frightfully expensive, costing between US$200,000 and US$300,000 per year, for each patient.

Intriguingly, still a very few drug companies are externalizing drug discovery research or even considering on a large scale, the use of the ‘Open Source’ drug discovery model, which is currently widely used in the Information Technology (IT) industry, as one of the main platforms to get new products.

Sales and Marketing:

Similarly, in the pharma sales and marketing space, there has been no game changing developments, during the last year.

Although, some initiatives that can at best be termed as tweaking on the traditional pharma methods, were visible, especially in the fields of digital marketing and e-detailing. The good old and much tried traditional tools, such as, Medical Representatives’ (MR) product detailing to individual doctors or a large number of ‘medical seminars’/ ‘continuing medical education’ events, of varying scale and dimensions, arranged for the medical practitioners, still ranked at the very top of this domain.

Here, again, no signs of a paradigm shift were visible to me during the year, nor do I reckon, any game changer is likely to surface, any time soon.

Supply chain:

The immense importance of ‘Supply Chain’ in the overall pharma business does not appear to have been properly understood by the drug companies up until 2015. This has been well vindicated by various credible studies. I would refer below just two of those:

The Chief Supply Chain Officer Report of September 2014, highlighted that just 39 percent of pharmaceutical respondents see the ‘Supply Chain’ as an equally important part of business success as R&D or sales and marketing. Whereas, 68 percent of consumer packaged goods’ respondents believe that leveraging the true potential of this domain, is one of the key requirements for business excellence.

This is noteworthy, as even ‘The McKinsey report’ of September 2013 stated that supply chains now account for around 25 percent of pharmaceutical costs. The annual spending on it is so staggering of around US$230 billion that even minor efficiency gains in this area could free up billions of dollars for investments elsewhere.

Instead of following its traditional approaches, if the pharma sector adopts even straightforward advances, well established in other industries, the total costs could fall by US$130 billion, ‘The McKinsey report’ estimates.

Ideally, pharma ‘Supply Chain’ should be considered not just a means of getting the products at the right place, at the right time and in the right quantities, but also as a means of delivering additional value to the customers. This can be achieved with radical strategic intervention in this space with the application of the state of art technology, which was still broadly lacking in 2015.

B. Areas where the industry made significant progress:

In this section, by citing examples on two other important strategic business areas of the pharma industry, where significant progress has been reported during 2015, I would try to drive home my point. These two areas are new drug delivery systems and patient care/engagement.

New drug delivery systems:

On the development of new drug delivery systems, some interesting collaborative arrangements have been reported in 2015. As illustrative examples, I would cite just the following two:

A. “Smart Inhaler”

I have picked up this important area of a new drug delivery system, out of many, as it fascinates me immensely. Here again, I would illustrate my point with just two examples – out of several others, as hereunder:

1. On December 2, 2015, the British drug major GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) reportedly entered into a technology deal with Wisconsin-based Propeller Health. Under this collaboration, Propeller will create a custom sensor for GSK’s Ellipta inhaler. The Propeller platform combines sensors, software, and care team services to improve patient outcomes by providing more insightful and efficient care. GSK is the second largest pharmaceutical company to partner with Propeller Health, which in December 2013 announced a deal with Boehringer Ingelheim to develop a custom sensor for BI’s Respimat device.

2. In September, 2015, Teva Pharmaceuticals reportedly acquired Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Gecko Health Innovations, a smart inhaler company.

Gecko’s main product is a platform for chronic respiratory disease management that also combines a sensor device that connects to most inhalers, a data analytics platform, an accessible user interface, and behavioral triggers to help asthma and COPD patients manage their condition, more effectively.

B. Sanofi and Medtronic strategic alliance in diabetes to improve patient experience and outcomes

Although not many large scale commercial ‘drug discovery’ initiatives based on the ‘Open Source’ model is still not known to me, in the ‘new drug delivery system’ area, a major global strategic alliance, between Sanofi and Medtronic in the diabetes therapy area, has been reported based on this model. This alliance is aimed at improving patient experience and outcomes for persons with diabetes, around the world.

As I mentioned, the alliance structured as an ‘Open Innovation’ model, will initially focus on the following key priorities:

Development of drug-device combinations
Delivery of care management services to improve adherence and simplify insulin treatment
Help people with diabetes better manage their condition

Patient engagement and care:

Quite encouragingly, in the ‘patient engagement and care’ area too, some of the global pharma majors have taken notable tech-based strides during 2015. Some of these laudable ventures are as follows:

A. Novo Nordisk and IBM partner to build diabetes care solutions on the Watson Health Cloud

According to a Dec. 10, 2015 ‘Press Release’, Novo Nordisk and IBM Watson Health agreed to work together to create diabetes solutions, built on the Watson Health Cloud.

Under this agreement, by harnessing the potential of the Watson Health Cloud, Novo Nordisk aims to further advance its offerings to people living with diabetes and also their health care professionals.

B. Sanofi collaborates with Google to Improve diabetes health outcomes

Less than a couple of months before the Novo Nordisk – IBM partnership agreement, by a Press Release of August 31 2015, Sanofi and Google announced their collaboration to improve care and outcomes for people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

According to the release, this collaboration will explore how to improve diabetes care by developing new tools that bring together many of the previously siloed pieces of diabetes management and enable new kinds of interventions. This includes health indicators such as blood glucose and hemoglobin A1c levels, patient-reported information, medication regimens and sensor devices.

Is the word “Innovation” also being used as a façade?

This important, though contentious issue, is being raised by many today, globally.

In my view, global pharma even in 2015, continued making the mistake of repeatedly highlighting, with high decibel sound bytes that the stakeholders do not understand the value, importance and necessity of innovation, which in any case is far from the truth. Nevertheless, It kept using, rather more misusing, this important word too often to cover up any action of theirs that faced government, general public or media scrutiny.

Additionally, many pharma players seemingly continued to remain contented with a very narrow definition of the word ‘innovation’, limiting its application mostly in the traditional space of drug discovery. While at the same time, many other smarter and more astute innovators, especially in the IT world, besides Google, IBM and Apple, started stepping into the vast healthcare arena, which otherwise could possibly have become pharma’s expanded market.

A am quoting below the names of just five of these amazing innovators, from the published data, just to give you a feel of this interesting area of ‘innovation’ in the health care arena:

Medivation: For finding the value of treatments that others ignored
Beijing Genomics Institute: For making DNA sequencing a mass-market
Medisafe: For using wireless and cloud technology to improve drug adherence
Ginger.IO: For harnessing behavioral data to save lives
Setpoint Medical: For creating a built-in pain-relief platform

Epilogue:

Overall, the year 2015 was a mixed bag for pharma. Many pharma players, I reckon, displayed their self serving intent in a more glaring manner. Several captains of this industry generally talked all right things, which are music to many ears, but mostly acted quite differently, going against the public health interest, as reported by the global media.

Many pharma companies continued trying to woo the media cleverly during the year. Some of them, reportedly, even sponsored trips of a few Indian journalists to their respective overseas headquarters. As I understand, many newspaper readers too, had noticed the small print disclosures in this regard, at the bottom of their stories on those companies, written on the return. I have no intention to be judgmental on such trips. Nevertheless, the global media, including the Indian media, by and large, reported all such deeds, with as much detail as possible, without slightest hesitation.

Encouragingly, a few global pharma majors, such as, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca challenged this contusing status quo in 2015. They seem to dare to chart into the much uncharted frontier to squarely face the challenge of the changing demands of the changing world order. Probably not so much by trying to change others, but mostly by changing themselves.

It appears, at least, the likes of the above global players have started accepting the new expectations of the aspiring customers and their fast transforming mindsets, including, the tougher governments enacting contemporary laws and regulations in many countries. In tandem, the exorbitantly high cost and usually low profile advocacy initiatives of drug companies seem to becoming lesser and lesser productive, as evident by the increasing number of avoidable issues that the pharma industry is now facing. Added to all this, a modern and major force-multiplier, in the form of social media, has now started unleashing its unfathomable power of shaping laws, regulations and even public opinion.

I wish this wind of change gaining more speed in 2016, and in that process, ushers in the long awaited dawn of a new paradigm. A paradigm of justice and equity in health care for all, across the world, and especially to my own country – India.

By: Tapan J. Ray

“Make in India” Image of Pharma Needs An Early Makeover

Posted on April 20, 2015 by Tapan Ray

“It is never too late to be what you might have been” - George Elliot

The chronicle of events since the last couple of years or so, related to ‘Make in India’ image of the local drug industry, have been instrumental to significantly slowing down the scorching pace of pharma exports growth of the country.

The Union Ministry of Commerce estimates that India’s export of drugs and pharmaceuticals may hardly touch US$16 billion in 2014-15, against US$14.84 billion of last financial year. This would mean that pharma exports growth would just be around 5 percent, against the projected number of 10 percent for the year. This is a significant concern, as pharma exports contribute around 40 percent to the total value turnover of the sector.

Despite this fact and couple of other important reasons, as I shall discuss below, about 45 percent of listed pharma stocks in India have reportedly more than doubled in the past one year. The current tail wind in the domestic pharma market could possibly have contributed to this aberration.

According to AIOCD Pharmasofttech AWACS, the last financial year started in April 2014 with 7.3 percent domestic retail pharma growth, which accelerated to 20.9 percent in March 2015, as the year ended.

High level of optimism and positive sentiments, thus generated in this process, possibly prompted many to ignore even some of the critical storm signals for the domestic pharma industry in its totality.

Declining pharma exports growth – A key challenge:

In 2014, pharmaceutical exports contributed 39 percent to the sector’s total value turnover. Consistently strong export performance over the last few decades, has catapulted the local drug industry in the not so common trajectory of the net foreign exchange earner for India. It is worth noting, though pharma exports grew at a rate of just 1.2 per cent to reach in 2013-14, it registered a CAGR of 21 percent over the last decade.

Some analysts estimate, the chances of Indian pharma exports touching even US$16 billion in 2014-15 are indeed challenging, especially considering low growth recorded by some of the large Indian pharma companies, including Ranbaxy, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories and Lupin, especially in the US market.

Mounting pricing pressure:

Consolidation process of pharmacy players in the US market is also affecting the profit margins of the Indian drug exporters.

Some key examples are:

Global alliance among three large pharmacy distributors – Walgreen, Alliance Boots and Amerisource –Bergen, in early 2013

Joint venture between the second largest US wholesale distributor, Cardinal Health, and CVS Caremark in December 2013

US pharmacy McKesson’s announced acquisition of US distributor Celesio in January 2014.

On April 9, 2015, Bloomberg reported that Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc.’s acting Chief Executive Officer Stefano Pessina has expressed his intent to do more deals, just months after being on the saddle of the biggest US drugstore chain.

As a result, a few dominant pharmacy players emerged with hard bargaining power, exerting tough pricing pressures on the generic drug companies and that too in a market that has been facing already facing cutthroat generic price competition.

Consequently, according to published reports, the prices of generic drugs, in general, declined by around 20 to 30 per cent over the past 19 months, in the US.

Vulnerability in the key market:

According to IBEF March 2015, the United States (US) has been the prime importer of pharmaceuticals from India, accounting for over 25 per cent of Indian pharmaceutical exports, followed by the European Union and Africa at second and third positions, respectively.

India exports over US$4 billion of pharmaceutical products to the US, out of its annual exports of around $15 billion. Large domestic companies, such as Ranbaxy, Sun Pharma and Lupin account for around US$3 billion of exports to the US and the balance comes from a large number of other Indian pharma players.

Government sites 3 reasons:

According to the Union Ministry of Commerce, there are reportedly three key reasons for the pharma export falling short of target in the financial year 2014-15, namely:

- Delayed regulatory approvals

- Consolidation of pharmacy players in North America (discussed above)

- Steep depreciation of currencies in emerging markets such as, Russia, Ukraine and Venezuela

A major controllable concern seems to be out of total control:

While articulating the above three factors, the Union Ministry of Commerce seems to have missed out a very important one that has been instrumental in perpetuating the recent slow down of Indian pharma exports, significantly. It is very much a controllable too, unlike the other three, though appears to be virtually out of total control of the domestic pharma companies.

Fortunately, media kept harping on it. PTI News of January 11, 2015 reported, while Indian pharma exports expected to touch a turnover US$16 billion in 2014-15, many Indian pharmaceutical companies continue to face regulatory action by the USFDA for alleged violation of ‘Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP)’ and other irregularities at the respective drug manufacturing facilities in different parts of the country.

This report observed, a number of Indian drug-makers, including Ranbaxy, Sun Pharma, IPCA Labs, Wockhardt and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories faced sanctions of the USFDA over different issues ranging from hygiene levels in the plant and concealment of data on failed tests to even fabrication of records. As a result, in several cases, these companies have been barred from selling their drugs in the US and other countries.

The issue involves the very top:

Sun Pharma, post acquisition of Ranbaxy, tops the pharma league table in India with around 9 percent of domestic market share.

It is much well known though, that the US drug regulator has already imposed a ban on import of medicines into the US, produced at its key constituent Ranbaxy’s India-based factories. Earlier, certain drugs produced at its Dewas plant of Ranbaxy were also barred from export to the entire EU region for non-compliance to GMP norms.

On its own, the acquirer – Sun Pharma has also faced USFDA ban on import of products made at its Karkhadi plant in Gujarat.

Taking all these into consideration, one can probably argue that the ‘Make in India’ issue for Indian pharma is humongous and quite a widespread one. Its adverse impact is very much palpable even at the very top.

The root cause:

The root cause of non-conformance of specified GMP standards probably dwells deep within the mindset of the concerned companies, as comes in the narrative of a whistleblower. In that case, the speed of progress of Indian pharma exports’ revival, alongside the industry image makeover, would possibly face a strong and silent headwind.

Pharma sector needs a health check:

On April 16, 2015, ET Intelligence Group commented that “High-flying pharma sector may be in need of a health check”, further reinforcing the case for re-rating of, especially, the export-oriented pharma sector.

The report underscored, that foreign brokerages Bank of America Merrill Lynch and CLSA have flagged concerns about valuations in pharma priced to perfection leaving little room for error. According to data from Bloomberg, since last week, ‘buy’ recommendations by analysts have dropped in stocks like Sun Pharma, Lupin, Cipla, Ipca Labs, Cadila Healthcare, Aurobindo Pharma and Torrent Pharma.

Smacks of irrational exuberance?

The article emphasized that the pharma growth story has now moved to being one that ‘smacks of irrational exuberance’.

The unprecedented interest in the sector has had the effect of shirking off negatives, like regulatory clamps by US FDA, price control, and currency fluctuations in the emerging markets and delay in drug approvals in the US.

The saga still continues:

Triggered by a whistleblower report and confirmed by a number of different adverse plant audit findings, the USFDA has stepped up scrutiny of India make generic drugs, over the last two years. It is worth noting that Indian generic drug players supply round 40 percent of such medicines sold in the United States.

As we discuss the subject, Indian pharma players continue to receive the warning letters from the USFDA, related to breach of GMP standards.

Lamentably enough, significant parts of the same continue to be the data integrity issues. Even in 2014, some large domestic players including, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Cadila Pharma and Orchid Pharma came under scrutiny of the US drug regulator.

Most recently in March 2015, USFDA banned most imports from the Ipca plants, in Pithampur in Madhya Pradesh and Silvassa in Dadra and Nagar Haveli, for non-compliance of GMP standards. Earlier, in January 2015, the US regulatory agency reportedly banned imports from another Indian manufacturing plant of Ipca.

India tops the list on the US import alerts:

According to USFDA data, from 2013 onwards, over 20 drug manufacturing facilities across India attracted ‘Import Alerts’ as against seven from China, two each from Australian, Canadian and Japanese units and one each from South African and German facilities.

Unfortunately, despite intense local and global furore on this subject, the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) of India, very strangely, do not seem to be much concerned on this critical issue, at least noticeably enough, besides making some occasional public statements on its working together with the USFDA in this regard.

I discussed similar subject in my blog post of September 29, 2014 titled “Make in India…Sell Anywhere in The World: An India Pharma Perspective.

Conclusion:

As it appears to me, the USFDA import bans related to breach of GMP standards, including ‘Data Integrity’, are mostly unrelated to knowledge deficiency of any kind – technical or otherwise, in the teams handling large drug manufacturing plants of India.

The details, as listed in the USFDA website, indicate that a large number of such incidents are related to falsification of data in the critical documentation process.

Earlier in this article, I termed the problem as very much controllable with the right kind of mindset to set things right, without probably resorting to cost-saving short cuts.

Prime Minister Modi, even during his very recent trips to France, Germany and Canada, passionate appealed to all, including pharma investors both local and global, to “Make in India” and “Sell Anywhere in The World” (exports). This call deserves to be responded with the right spirit and mindset and not just with lip services.

Failure to effectively address the patients’ safety requirements related issues of the foreign drug regulators, such as USFDA, and any direct or indirect attempt to categorize this plight as international ‘conspiracy’ of any kind, could jeopardize India’s interest in pharma exports, for a much longer while.

There is not even an iota of doubt today that “Make in India” image of Indian pharma has suffered a huge set back, at least in the largest and most valuable pharmaceutical market of the world.

As the well acclaimed English novelist George Elliot once said, “It is never too late to be what you might have been”, Indian pharma industry urgently needs an image makeover in this critical area…through a demonstrable change in mindset for doing things right…in every occasion and situation, always.

This is critical, as loss of credibility and reputation too frequently can push a pharma company virtually out of major international business for good… its current clout, might and financial power, not withstanding.

By: Tapan J. Ray

An image makeover is in progress in the global pharmaceutical industry.

Posted on August 16, 2009 by Tapan Ray

At the beginning of 2009, Andrew Witty, the young head honcho of Glaxo SmithKline (GSK) initiated a one CEO tirade to recognize the global poor as a stakeholder of the global pharmaceutical industry. The industry that has been much maligned over a period of time, despite its yeoman contribution to the mankind, for aiming its drug discovery and delivery more often at the rich patients and not at the sick poor of mostly the developing and underdeveloped nations of the world.

Walking the talk:

Witty perhaps wondered and questioned why the poor population must share disproportionately the disease burden of the world. As the saying goes, ‘the proof of the pudding is in the eating’. Witty walked the talk and announced:

1. GSK medicines will be available in the least developed countries (LDC) of the world at 25% of their price in the United Kingdom (U.K).

2. 20% of profits from these medicines will be re-invested for various projects in those countries.

3. GSK will put 800 potential drug patents in a ‘patent pool’ to find cures of neglected, mainly, tropical diseases.

4. Scientists will be able to share the Research Center of GSK located at Tres Cantos in Spain for this purpose.

Will other global pharmaceutical players join in?

Andrew Witty, it appears, nurtures a very keen and very real desire to change the public image of the global pharmaceutical industry through transformation of its decade long culture and setting some of these path breaking examples, which only bravehearts can follow. However, many still feel, “Improving the greedy and uncaring image of the pharmaceutical industry is indeed a tough call.”

It has been reported in the media, during his announcement for the ‘patent pool’, the GSK CEO, in fact threw a challenge to other global pharmaceutical players to join him. What resulted thereafter was a bit of an anti-climax though with a very lukewarm response from others and Andrew with a sense of perhaps despair commented, “It has caught them a bit by surprise because we didn’t go around talking to people at the time, and they’ve had to come up this curve from zero.”

The Guardian in a very recent article on Andrew Witty, quoted him in the same context of extending access to modern medicines to the poor of LDCs, “he’s encouraging Indian companies to knock off its on-patent meds for sale in poor countries, as long as they make quality products and asks GSK for a license, which it will give royalty-free.”

In the same article, The Gurdian wrote, “He’s calling on every foreign company that makes profits in Uganda to cut its prices there”. “I don’t just mean drug companies,” Witty told the newspaper -”everybody.”

It does not cost much:

The GSK CEO admits that he is not losing much on his price cuts in the least developed countries. Uganda market of GSK is very small with turnover of about £9 million a year. The total profit from the LDCs is less than £5 million. “Those sorts of sums are like the 1p coins people don’t trouble to pick up off the pavement for a company with revenue of £24bn and a stock market valuation of £60bn,” he commented.

Conclusion:

Despite not too many encouraging responses being forthcoming from others, it is indeed admirable that a top global pharma company head honcho is setting such tough goals for himself in particular and the industry in general. The question that flows from here, even reading all these:

Are you kidding Andrew Witty? Do you really mean all these? Or it is another smart global pharma CEO hankering for just cheap publicity?

Seeing you Andrew Witty, though long ago, in flesh and blood, my heart says, you are possibly not made of that stuff to befool the world on this pressing issue of the world, being at your wit’s end.

Tapan 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.

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: image

Rebuilding Pharma Image: A Laudable Mindset – Lacking In Many

Do Consumers Perceive Pharma Industry Innovative?

Define And Adapt To Reality: Two Pivotal Pharma Leadership Skills For Sustainable Excellence

Dwindling Drug Innovation: Declining Image: Unchanged Business And Advocacy Models

Pharma In 2016 Rio Olympics

“Make in India” Image of Pharma Needs An Early Makeover

An image makeover is in progress in the global pharmaceutical industry.