For Patient-Centricity: Emerging a C-Suite Role

Posted on August 20, 2018 by Tapan Ray

Regardless of skepticism of many, the formidable power of physicians to take all treatment decisions for patients, is gradually getting moderated, globally. Although, its pace may vary from country to country. An increasing number of more informed patients are carving out a greater role for themselves in this important process.

The central focus for brand demand generation can no longer remain just on the doctors. This is because, as I wrote this in my article, published in this Blog on July 06, 2015: “Slowly but steadily the process of taking treatment decisions for the patients is undergoing a metamorphosis, where well informed patients no longer want to play just a passive role. These patients want the doctors to take a final decision on their treatment only after meaningful interactions with them.” Besides a broad prescription pattern, this includes the medicines that they will consume, including meaningful details on product cost against the benefits to be accrued.

The age-old practice of doing a little bit on patient education or compliance, are grossly inadequate in an evolving new scenario. The good news is, many pharma companies have started realizing that appropriate engagement with patients to deliver what they want and more, can lead to better financial performance.

Consequently, the ball game for prescription demand generation is showing early signs of a change – somewhat radical in nature. To spearhead this unavoidable metamorphosis for the organization, there surfaced a brand-new role of a CxO – The Chief Patient Officers (CPO).

This new senior management position is expected to direct organizational focus on patients. Understand their concerns, needs, wants and goals, particularly in the disease areas where the company represents. And finally, give shape to new multichannel well-coordinated platforms of patient engagement, for better commercial returns. In this article, I shall try to explore how this transformation pans out, if at all.

The direction is right, but patients must feel the change:

As I said before, some pharma players have started accepting the reality. The crucial need for an organization to become ‘Patients-Centric’ can’t be wished away anymore. For example, a 2015 “Industry Healthcheck” survey where 1600 pharma executives participated, found that 85 percent of respondents agreed that ‘Patient-Centricity’ is the best route to improve profitability, in the fast changing business environment.

It is perhaps well understood that the pharma industry has arrived at this point due to increasing access of the general population to easily available, all-kind of information on the cyber space, including health care. The enabling facility has already prompted many patients evaluating various treatment options for a disease, including choice of drugs and their cost.

As a result, pharma companies felt the necessity to have a new leader who will give a new perspective and direction in creating a new value for the organization, for a sustainable progress. This involves charting a comprehensive pathway to gradually shift the entire company focus on ‘patients for products’, and not on ‘products for patients.’

According to reports, a few global pharma majors, such as Merck and Sanofi already have their CPO in place, but patients are yet to feel any difference on the ground even for these companies, as many say.

What exactly is ‘Patient-Centricity?’ – Two perspectives:

It won’t be a bad idea to get to know two different perspectives on what ‘Patient-Centricity’ exactly is – one from a CPO and the other from patient groups, as follows:

A. 3 three pillars of ‘Patient-Centricity’ from the CPO perspective:

To get a ringside perspective to this question from the industry, let me quote from the first CPO - Anne C. Beal appointed in a top-10 pharma – Sanofi, on March 31, 2014, though the CPO position is in existence, since 2012.

On December 2014, at the 11th annual Patient Summit USA conference, Anne Beal, reportedly deliberated on the three pillars of her company’s patient-centric strategy, which I shall describe, as follows:

Utilizing patients’ input to get a better sense of their needs in order to design and deliver solutions that help fulfill them.

Engaging and supporting patients to ensure the solutions that the company delivers help enhance their lives and improve outcomes.

Involving with the company employees and supporting them to create an engaged community and patient-centric culture.

B. 9 attributes of ‘Patient-Centricity’ from the patients’ perspective:

‘Patient View’ – a UK-based research, publishing, and consultancy group, arrived at the ‘9 Key Attributes’ of ‘Patient-Centricity’. This is based on the analysis of feedbacks (2016-17) from 2,000 patient groups worldwide, 50+ different medical specialties in 100+ countries. The critical attributes of the same that patients want to see in a drug company can be summarized, as follows:

Demonstrate integrity and authenticity through all company actions.

Understand all the issues that patients face ‘beyond the pill’ and help in dealing with them.

Transparency in drug pricing policy, research, results, funding relationship.

Ensure that all patients are included in access strategies, regardless of the returns to the company.

Products to provide quantifiable value to patients.

Reliable supply and comprehensive patient safeguard.

Provide quality product information – Consistent, current, balanced and usable.

Patient group relation – good intention, effective governance, communication and training.

Ensure patients are engaged and their opinions are sought at each stage of R&D.

On a broader canvas, the two perspectives on ‘Patient-Centricity’ – one from the CPO and the other from the patients’ groups, do have some important similarities. Nevertheless, I reckon, the CPOs would still need to cover more ground to match patients’ expectations from a ‘Patient-Centric’ pharma company.

Claimants of ‘patient-centric’ focus are many, but few deliver consistently:

Quite expectedly, there are many claimants for a ‘patient-centric’ organizational focus. Interestingly, few actually deliver consistently. This was vindicated in the article – ‘How patient-centric is the pharma industry’, published by PDD - a design and innovation consultancy firm on June 06, 2016.

The paper indicates both the up and downside of pharma company claims on ‘Patient-Centricity.’ The upside is that the hype has influenced, at least, some drug players to openly talk about the need to shift the company focus more on patients. A few have initiated some tangible action, as well. Whereas, the downside of it is the lack of consistency in the enthusiasm of ‘patient-centric’ actions by these companies. To illustrate the point, let me quote the following two examples from the article:

In the 2013 survey on ‘Patient-Centricity’ by the research firm ‘Patient View’, ViiV Healthcare (the GSK & Pfizer joint venture focused on HIV therapies), Gilead, AbbVie, Menarini and Janssen occupied the top 5 spots.

However, in the ‘eyeforpharma Barcelona Awards 2016 ’ that too focuses on ‘Patient-Centricity’, none of these companies featured in the “Most Valuable Patient Initiative or Service” category. Whereas, Sanofi took the top spot, and Merck, Roche, Novartis and TEVA were the remaining nominees.

The criteria of the two selection processes, apparently being similar, this is interesting. More so, when the ‘patient-centric’ focus of an organization is an ongoing strategy, with a ‘top priority’ tag attached to it.

Be that as it may, that some serious efforts being made by a few companies in this area, can’t be brushed aside, either, regardless of the fact that the CPO position came into existence, since 2012. It flagged, at that time, the criticality of ‘Patient-Centricity’ in the pharmaceutical business and possibly, sent a signal to pharma players for a course correction, in this direction, soon enough.

Conclusion:

In an interview, published in December 2016 issue of McKinsey Quarterly, LEO Pharma’s president and CEO, Gitte Aabo, aptly summarized the process of ‘Patient-Centricity’, as follows:

“Patient-Centricity means being deeply entrenched in the patient’s needs, not just thinking about how to develop new products and new features. It means reaching out to patients and considering treatments that will help them in whatever situation they find themselves in.”

However, since long, most drug manufacturers are apparently solely driven by commercial considerations, both for new drug discovery and also in generic product development. Subsequent marketing strategies are obviously an integral component of the same organizational thought leadership and value chain. Several examples from the current status of the R&D pipeline for multi-drug resistant antibiotics, or what is happening even with the generic drug pricing in many countries, including the United States, will vindicate this point.

That said, a mild wind of change on the sails of traditional pharma mindset seems to be slowly catching up, as some CPOs position themselves in the saddle. Hopefully, this will ultimately make patients the centerpiece of pharma business. Can more of this kind of actions be construed as signals for imbibing ‘Patient-Centricity’ by the drug companies? Will its impact be visible and felt by all – in real life, soon?

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Creating ‘Shared Value’ in Pharma – The Way Forward

Posted on July 30, 2018 by Tapan Ray

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A laudable intent, but is it credible?

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

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

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

Consistently declining pharma’s image and public trust:

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

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

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

How will “shared value” creation help pharma?

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

Antimicrobial Resistance: A Recent Perspective

Posted on February 19, 2018 by Tapan Ray

On January 23, 2018, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland – the first independent analysis of pharmaceutical industry efforts to tackle antibiotic drug resistance, was published by the Netherlands based Access to Medicine Foundation.

The issue of Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) was brought under focus by the World Economic Forum (WEF) not for the first time at Davos in 2018. Its 2013 Annual Report on global risks, also underscored the gargantuan health hazard that AMR poses to mankind. It said, we live in a bacterial world where we will never be able to stay ahead of the mutation curve. A test of our resilience is how far the curve, we allow ourselves to fall behind. It’s indeed a profound statement!

In that sense, the AMF analysis is important. More so, when the global population is virtually at the threshold of facing a situation very similar to pre-antibiotic era, where even a common infection used to pose threat to a life. And now, a fast-developing AMR to many effective antibiotics or even super-antibiotics, are making them almost redundant in many serious conditions. Consequently, around 700,000 people die every year only due to antimicrobial resistance, the world over.

The World Health Organization (WHO) also reiterated its grave concern in this area by a news release on September 20, 2017. It cautioned, “Antimicrobial resistance is a global health emergency that will seriously jeopardize progress in modern medicine.” Against that backdrop, in this article, I shall dwell on some latest developments in this area, both globally and also in India.

Dire need for newer antibiotics – but dry R&D pipeline:

At the very outset, let me flag another critical area that is intimately related to this concern. An article titled, “Where Are the Antibiotics?”, published by the AARP Foundation adds more to this growing concern. It writes, in an era when many breakthrough innovative drugs are curing some of our most deadly afflictions, the quest for meeting the unmet medical needs, seems to have shifted away from development of critically needed breakthrough antibiotics to effectively address AMR, for various reasons.

The author further highlighted that between the time penicillin was discovered in 1928, and the 1970s – 270 antibiotics were approved – a robust arsenal of powerful drugs that kept almost all bacterial infections at bay. However, since then, research into new antibiotics has declined dramatically. Today, just five of the top 50 big drug companies are reportedly developing innovative antibiotics – the article reiterates. Nevertheless, some recent developments in this area can’t be ignored, either, which I shall touch upon in this discussion.

Global initiatives for a multi-pronged concerted action:

It is understandable that there are no magic bullets to address the fast-growing menace of AMR. It calls for a multi-pronged strategy with well-orchestrated concerted efforts for its effective implementation with military precision. Following are the three primary constituents who should lead from the front in the battle against AMR, as I reckon:

The world leaders
Each country, individually
Pharmaceutical industry, both global and local

The medical profession, including hospitals, nursing homes, the retail chemists and individual patients, also play a significant role to alleviate this problem, especially in India and other developing countries. But, I shall keep that as a subject for a separate discussion, altogether. Let me now touch-upon the first three constituents, one by one, as follows:

1. The world leaders’ initiative:

Realizing that failure to act on AMR will result in a global health and financial crisis, the world leaders met to address this growing menace. Accordingly, on September 21, 2016, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) passed a declaration aimed at slowing the spread of antibiotic-resistant superbugs. At this meeting in New York City, the top UN leaders successfully urged all governments to sign a political declaration to tackle the problem of AMR, both globally and in their respective countries. The joint declaration requires each country to develop a 2-year plan to protect the potency of antibiotics for both livestock and humans. The progress of the initiative for each country at the end of those 2 years will be evaluated. However, in this article, I shall focus only on the agreed human-specific actions, which include the following:

Antibiotics should be prescribed only when they are absolutely necessary
A massive education campaign about antibiotic resistance.
Greater monitoring of superbugs to understand the scope and magnitude of the problem.
Safeguarding current antibiotic stockpile.

The leaders suggested that people should be encouraged to help prevent the crisis from turning into a death sentence for millions, with the steps, such as:

Get available vaccines to prevent illness
Stop asking doctors for antibiotics when they have the cold or flu, as antibiotics treat neither
To urge their political leaders to commit to action in combating antibiotic resistance.

2. Country-specific initiatives:

In September 2016, just a year after the UNGA high-level meeting on AMR, an update by the United Nations Foundation reported that 151 countries out of 195 WHO member states have responded. The overall response includes the following, among others:

85 percent of countries are developing or have developed National Action Plans (NAC).
52 percent of countries have a fully developed plan with ‘One Health’ approach that seeks to unify human and veterinary medicine, agriculture, and food providers against the progression of AMR by reducing agricultural antimicrobial use.
52 percent of Low and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) have national-level measures in place on ‘Infection Prevention and Control (IPC)’ measures in human healthcare.

3. Pharmaceutical industry initiatives:

I shall cite only the latest commendable developments in this area, as I see it. On Jan. 21, 2016 a document titled the ‘Declaration on Combating Antimicrobial Resistance’, was launched, again, as part of the World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland.

For the first time, 85 pharmaceutical, biotechnology, generic-drug, and diagnostic companies agreed on a common set of principles for global action to support antibiotic conservation and the development of new drugs, diagnostics, and vaccines. The document, outlining several critical measures the government and industry must take to increase antibiotic effectiveness worldwide, was also drafted and signed by nine industry associations spanning 18 countries.

Global progress assessment of AMR initiatives in 2018:

This brings me back to where I started from, while analyzing what happened in this regard a year after the above declaration was signed. On January 23, 2018, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland – the first independent analysis of pharmaceutical industry efforts to tackle drug resistance, was revealed by the AMF. It found companies are developing new drugs, as well as dismantling the incentives that encourage sales staff to oversell antibiotics, setting limits on the concentration of antibiotics in factory wastewater released into the environment, and tracking the spread of superbugs.

In the AMR Benchmark, GSK and Johnson & Johnson lead among the largest research-based pharmaceutical companies. A separate ranking of manufacturers of generic antibiotics features Mylan, Cipla, and Fresenius Kabi Global, in the leading positions. While Mylan leads the generic medicine manufacturers, Entasis, reportedly, leads the biotechnology group.

Twenty-eight antibiotics are in late stages of development:

The other key findings of the 2018 study include mention of 28 antibiotics that are in later stages of development, targeting pathogens deemed critical AMR priorities by the WHO, and/or US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. However, only two of these 28 candidates are supported by plans to ensure they can be both made accessible and used wisely if they reach the market. Be that as it may, the benchmark finds room for all companies to improve in this space, the report indicated.

Some major initiatives in India:

The good news is, ‘The National Policy for Containment of Antibacterial Resistance’, with similar objectives, was put in place in India by the Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, way back in 2011. Further, on March 20, 2015, to strengthen the surveillance of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in the country, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) had set up a National Antimicrobial Resistance Research and Surveillance Network (AMRRSN) to enable compilation of national data of AMR at different levels of health care.

Again, in February 2017, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) has put a new ‘Treatment Guidelines for Antimicrobial Use in Common Syndromes’, to achieve the same objectives. Despite this, as many medical experts opine, a large number of General Practitioners (GP), including hospitals, nursing homes continued over-prescribing antibiotics. Alarmingly, considered as the last line of defense antibiotics by many doctors – Colistin and Carbapenem resistant infections have also been reported from several Indian hospitals. All this adds further fuel to the AMR fire.

Another matter of huge worry in India:

The February 04, 2018 article titled, ‘Threats to global antimicrobial resistance control Centrally approved and unapproved antibiotic formulations sold in India,’ published in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, highlight serious hurdles for controlling antimicrobial resistance in India, which has had parliamentary investigations into the failures of the country’s drug regulatory system. The study was conducted by researchers from Queen Mary University in London, Newcastle University and Lakshya Society for Public Health Education and Research in Pune. Some of the key findings of the study are as follows:

Extensive use unapproved of fixed dose combination (FDC) antibiotics is contributing to the rising rate of AMR in India, which is already one of the highest in the world.

Out of the 118 of FDC antibiotics being sold in India, only 43 (36 percent) were approved by the CDSCO. These 118 antibiotic formulations are being sold in 3307 brand names and manufactured by 476 entities. Of these, 464 were Indian manufactures, and 12 were MNCs.

The authors recommend work on understanding why unapproved formulations are being prescribed by medical professionals.

Conclusion:

As the above AARP Foundation article highlights, like all living beings, bacteria constantly evolve to survive. While encountering a new antibiotic, they quickly find ways to evade it, and continue to live or exist. Some have even developed cell wall like virtually impregnable shields, as it were, keeping antibiotics out. Others pump antibiotics out when they get in. Several deadly bacteria have even devised ways to deactivate antibiotics.

The comments made in the article titled, ‘The Future of Antibiotics and Resistance,’ published by The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) on January 24, 2013, is also worth noting. It says, the converging crises of increasing resistance and collapse of antibiotic research and development are the predictable results of policies and processes we have used to deal with infections for 75 years. If we want a long-term solution, the answer is not incremental tweaking of these policies and processes. Novel approaches, based on a reconceptualization of the nature of resistance, disease, and prevention, are needed.

The bottom line still remains, AMR is a humongous threat to the global population, not just in India. While its awareness is gradually increasing, much more painstaking work remains to be done by all, both individually and collectively, to contain this global health menace. It’s our responsibility to protect the well-being of our future generations.

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.

With ‘Cutting Corners’ Going North, Pharma Reputation Dives South

Posted on January 15, 2018 by Tapan Ray

Just a few months ago, on October 24, 2017, ‘New Jersey Law Journal’ came out with an eye-catching headline – “Sanofi Set to Pay $ 61M Settlement in Antitrust Suit Over Vaccine Bundling.” The suit says: “Sanofi-Pasteur allegedly suppressed competition for its pediatric meningococcal vaccine, Menactra, by charging physicians and hospitals up to 35 percent more for its product, unless they agreed to buy Sanofi’s pediatric vaccines exclusively. Sanofi-Pasteur is the vaccines division of French drug manufacturer Sanofi.”

Nevertheless, a statement from the company said: “Despite Sanofi’s strong defenses, Sanofi recognizes that continued litigation is likely to be extraordinarily expensive and time-consuming and thus has agreed to enter into this Settlement Agreement to avoid the further expense, inconvenience, risk and distraction of burdensome and protracted litigation. Sanofi is finally putting to rest this case by obtaining complete dismissal of the action and a release by settlement class members of all released claims.”

When such incidences – of various scales and dimensions, continue being reported by both the global and local media, over a long period of time, one can fathom the potential of their cumulative impact on public and other stakeholders. Severely dented image and reputation of pharma, in general, before the eyes of so many, across the world, is a testimony to this phenomenon. Considering these as ‘cutting corners’ syndromes, I shall discuss in this article, how fast is pharma reputation diving South, with incidences of ‘cutting corners’ keep going North.

‘Cutting Corners’:

The Oxford dictionary defines ‘cutting corners’ as: ‘Doing something perfunctorily so as to save time or money’. Putting it in the context, I reckon, legally or ethically questionable actions with a deliberate intent of making quick profits, if not profiteering, can be termed as ‘cutting corners’ or business malpractices.

‘Cutting Corners’ going North:

This is no way a recent phenomenon. Gradually increasing number of new reports on pharma’s alleged malpractices are not uncommon, either. On the contrary, these keep coming rather too frequently – baffling many industry watchers and its well-wishers, for different reasons.

The details of 20 largest settlements in this area reached between the United States Department of Justice and various pharmaceutical companies from 1991 to 2012, as available from Wikipedia, provide a glimpse to its magnitude and dimension. The settlement amount reportedly includes both the civil (False Claims Act) settlement and criminal fine. Glaxo’s US$ 3 billion settlement is apparently one of the largest civil, False Claims Act settlement on the record, and Pfizer’s US$ 2.3 billion settlement includes a record-breaking US$ 1.3 billion criminal fine. A federal court also recognized all off-label promotion as a violation of the False Claims Act, leading to a US$ 430 million settlement during that period, as this report highlights.

In one of my articles, titled ‘Big Pharma Receives Another Body Blow: Would Indian Slumber End Now?’, published in this blog on May 19, 2014, I quoted a few more examples from 2013 and 2014, as well. A few of these are as follows:

In March 2014, the antitrust regulator of Italy reportedly fined two Swiss drug majors, Novartis and Roche 182.5 million euros (U$ 251 million) for allegedly blocking distribution of Roche’s Avastin cancer drug in favor of a more expensive drug Lucentis that the two companies market jointly for an eye disorder.

Just before this, in the same month of March 2014, it was reported that a German court had fined 28 million euro (US$ 39 million) to the French pharma major Sanofi and convicted two of its former employees on bribery charges.

In May 2013, Sanofi was reportedly fined US$ 52.8 Million by the French competition regulator for trying to limit sales of generic versions of the company’s Plavix.

Pharma reputation dives South:

That pharma reputation is diving south, is well captured in the ‘Business and Industry Sector Ratings’ by Gallup, dated August 2-7, 2017. According to this public rating, the top 5 and bottom 5 industries came up as follows:

Top 5:

Industry	Total Positive %	Neutral %	Total Negative %	*Net positive or negative %
Computer	75	15	8	+67
Restaurant	72	21	7	+65
Farming and agriculture	70	17	12	+58
Grocery	60	23	17	+43
Internet	59	21	18	+41

The bottom 5, including the federal government:

Industry	Total Positive %	Neutral %	Total Negative %	*Net positive or negative %
Airline	41	20	35	+6
Oil and gas	38	21	40	-2
Healthcare	38	18	45	-7
Pharmaceutical	33	16	50	-17
Federal Govt.	29	19	52	-23

*Net Positive is % Positive minus % negative (in percentage points)

Image rejuvenation campaign not yielding results:

Arguably, the richest and the most powerful pharma industry lobby group in the largest pharmaceutical market of the world, is incurring a mind-boggling sum of expenditure to mend the severely dented collective reputation and image of its members.

Vindicating this point, a January 18, 2017 media report articulated that a major pharma industry lobby group – PhRMA, is gearing up for a new image building campaign by spending in the “tens of millions” each year to drum up support for the reputationally challenged pharma industry. Such initiatives by PhRMA, as I understand, are not totally new, but rather ongoing. Be that as it may, as the Gallup survey confirms, pharma reputation keeps diving South, unabated.

Mending pharma’s reputation surfaces as one of the top concerns of the pharma industry. It, therefore, demands commensurate priority in working out a meaningful strategic plan, and its effective implementation on the ground, collectively. More so, when the POTUS – Donald Trump, has also emerged as a vocal pharma critic. He has already proclaimed that drug companies “are getting away with murder,” – as the above media report highlights.

Where is this campaign going off the mark?

On this subject, an article of September 5, 2017, published by Ars Technica – a technology news publication aptly epitomized, what is happening today with these campaigns, against what should have happened, instead. The column carries a headline ‘Big Pharma hopes research spending – not reasonable pricing – will improve image’.

The columnist wrote: “To scrub down their filthy reputations, drug makers could try lowering prices, a public mea culpa, or pledging to make pricing and marketing more responsible and transparent. But they seem to have taken a different strategy.” On this score, a relevant example, out of several others, was of Biogen introducing a drug in 2016, for a rare spine disorder and priced it at an eye-popping US$ 750,000 for the first years’ worth of treatment.

In pharma image revamp campaign, the focus on R&D spending or drug innovation, including blatant self-serving demands, such as strictest product patent and data exclusivity provisions, is rather overwhelming. It is understandable that all this fits in well with various pharma lobby group’s mission and mandate, but is unlikely to deliver what consumers would consider good behavior on the part of drug companies.

Is Indian pharma out of this loop?

The answer to this question is an emphatic – ‘No’. Alleged ‘dubious product quality’ related ongoing saga, is known today by all concerned. This had often culminated into US-FDA import bans of many drugs, manufactured by several Indian drug manufacturers – starting from the very top. Nonetheless, that’s not ‘the all’ or ‘end all’ in the ballgame of ‘cutting corners’ in India, as I explained above.

On September 26, 2017, a media report flashed: ‘The Income Tax (IT) investigation wing claims to have unearthed a nexus between a leading pharmaceutical company and doctors, and the evidence showing payments running into Crores to the latter for prescribing the company’s medicines.’

Close on the heels of ‘compromised drug quality standard’, such malpractices come as a double whammy for patients. But, the saga continues. In my article, titled ‘Healthcare in India And Hierarchy of Needs’, published in this blog on November 06, 2017, I mentioned about the October 31, 2017 public notice of the State Attorney General (AG) of Connecticut. The notice cited several instances of alleged drug price fixing in the United States. Interestingly, this lawsuit includes name of several large Indian companies, such as Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Emcure, Glenmark, Sun Pharma, and Zydus Pharma. The expanded complaint also names two individual defendants, one among them is the promoter, the chief executive officer and managing director of a large Indian pharma manufacturer.

Further, as I wrote before, the Maharashtra government’s recent announcement on enactment of a new law called the “Cut practices in Medical Services Act, 2017”, casts a darker shadow, not just on the doctors’ reputation, but also over the health care industry, in general, including pharma.

Today’s patients are more informed:

In today’s world, wider access to the Internet for a large number of global population has a profound implication in every sphere of life. News, discussions, opinions, comments and a plethora of other information on various industries, including pharma, are available from different credible websites, just as anything else.

Additionally, the social media, collectively, have made exchanges and interpretations of such information within various groups and communities, as fast as these could be. Just as many other different things, wrongdoings or malpractices, if any, of various industries, also get quickly captured and shared by the Netizen with ease and élan. These include incidences of ‘cutting corners’ by constituents of the pharma industry too.

Conclusion:

The Public Relationship campaigns of pharma lobby groups, with a hope to bridging the industry’s ‘trust deficit’, have been reported from the United States and other countries. However, any such campaign for the pharma industry in India hasn’t arrested my attention, as yet.

It’s beyond any reasonable doubt or debate that the pharma industry, in general, has saved and is still instrumental in saving more lives, in every nook and corner of the world. Ironically, the same industry, for its own deeds prompted mostly by the self-serving needs, has been suffering a massive collateral damage.

The industry’s long unblemished image and reputation have been severely tarnished, requiring rejuvenation with an inclusive approach. This may call for a mindset, at least, nearer to the same of George W. Merck – the legendary President and Chairman Merck & Co., Inc. He articulated a vision – “Medicine Is For The Patient, Not For The Profits”, and practiced it religiously. In today’s context, this may sound rather utopian in letters, but surely not in its spirit… be that as it may….

Pharma lobby groups hope to reverse the current trend by focusing only on R&D spending, drug innovation and strictest patent protection and data exclusivity ecosystem is apparently a non-starter. That ongoing multi-million-dollar pharma image revamp campaigns haven’t yet captured any tangible positive outcomes – not even in the United States, is possibly a testimony to this fact.

The status quo is expected to continue. More so, when ‘reasonable pricing’ of drugs is one of the top most demands of patients, patient groups and even many governments – and that’s exactly where the buck stops in pharma business.

In my view, pharma reputation restoration process isn’t merely a one-sided communication issue, as it appears today. A strategic blue print of this critical industry need, deserves to be drawn on a much broader canvass with a patient-serving mindset, instead of just a self-serving one. Otherwise, with incidences of ‘cutting corners’ going North, pharma reputation will keep diving South… till it finds its very bottom.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Digitization or Digitalization: What’s Seen More in Indian Pharma?

Posted on January 8, 2018 by Tapan Ray

Just before this New Year, a doctor friend from a large city of India invited me for dinner, as I happened to be there for a couple of days. Dr. Srikanth Kashikar (name changed) is one of my longtime friends, and a super specialist in the field of oncology.

As Srikanth planned to come for dinner straight from his clinic, I was keen to observe a few pharma company representatives making professional calls to him, if possible. Srikanth agreed. as that was one of those days when he meets them, after seeing all his patients. 8 pm was the mutually agreed time.

I was there a little before the scheduled time. However, as Srikanth was still examining a patient, he came out and asked me to wait for a few minutes in his assistant’s room. Right around 8.15 pm I was in his office. He sent a message through his secretary that he won’t be able to see more than two representatives, as he needs to go out.

What I experienced?

Sometime back, I had a similar experience of sitting incognito in the clinic of another doctor friend, practising in another major city. Hence, I had a heightened level of interest in getting a ringside view of changes in the professional discourse, if any, especially involving the science and art of persuasive medical communication of the modern world.

Meanwhile, the first representative – a pleasant personality, and wearing a smile on his face, entered the room. As he greeted, my friend reciprocated with a brief smile. The young man was representing a large global pharma player. He seemed to be a bit nervous, though, probably apprehending the time constraint to do his job effectively.

I was delighted to see him taking out a tablet computer. He commenced detailing a complex oncology product, but apparently was going a bit faster than any normal communication process. Digitally captured impressive visuals, sound and medical references flashed in and out. It reminded me the age-old approach of Medical Representatives’ (MR) detailing from well-designed folders, printed on art cards.

Dr. Kashikar did not ask any question, neither during nor after the presentation. His face was rather expressionless – difficult to fathom what was going in his mind, at that time. Nonetheless, having completed his detailing, the young MR explained the procedure for the patients to get his expensive cancer product at a concessional price. This also did not appear much novel to me, either. Requesting for prescription support, the young man left the clinic, a bit hurriedly, though.

The second MR came in, accompanied by a not so young gentleman, whom he introduced as a manager. They were from a large Indian company. As the MR was about to take his detailing aid out, my doctor friend asked him to make his presentation brief. This apparently unsettled the person. Highlighting just a few points for different products from his folder, he requested the doctor to prescribe a particular oncology brand, and looked at the manager. At that stage, his manager took out a tablet PC demonstrating a product price comparison chart, and also the results of some local clinical trials that his company has conducted on the product. My friend shifted his posture on the chair several times till the manager was done with his presentation.

After they left, I looked at my friend, as he looked at me. He smiled, and said let’s go. I did not enquire anything about the two just concluded calls, either. Thereafter, it was purely laughter and fun between two of us and our wives, as we all were catching up with each other.

My overall impression?

My impression? These will obviously be based on just two interactions, involving some big pharma names, though. It appeared to me, top and busy doctors, such as my friend, continue remaining mostly passive during product detailing. MRs usually switch into a mode of hurry, when asked for making a brief presentation by the specialists, just as what was happening in the past.

The only visible change, I guess, is in a few areas of digitization of detailing tools. I hope, considerable time-gap between my two such experiences, was filled-up by expensive external and internal training inputs of all kinds, including digitization in some areas. Thus, the moot question that surfaces: Are these training programs significantly improving per field staff average productivity on the ground? In case the answer is ‘no’, there arises an urgency to know ‘why’ and what is the way forward?

Zeroing-in:

The answer to the above question of productivity would entail an enormous amount of data to analyze, which I don’t have access to, right now. Nonetheless, as an illustration, let me zero-in on to just one change that I noticed on that day – the use of tablet computer during field staff interaction with the doctors. This brings me to the subject of today’s discussion – ‘Digitization or Digitalization: What’s Seen More in Indian Pharma?’ In this article, I shall deliberate on this fascinating area during the changing phase of pharma business dynamics.

More of ‘Digitization’ or ‘Digitalization’?

Both ‘Digitization’ and ‘Digitalization’ are important, and often used as interchangeable words. Although, these two are significantly different, it’s not possible to bring in a digital transformation in business sans digitization.

A. Digitization:

Digitization basically means automation of currently followed manual systems, records and processes, from analog to digital formats. These cover different types of paperwork or paper-based information systems, including photos or sound or even movement. The simplest example of this is scanning a paper document or photograph and storing them as soft copies, or even converting a movie from a celluloid format to DVD.

Digitization in context of pharma:

In the pharma industry, it may mean converting a detailing folder into digital format and delivering a similar product message to the medical profession through a tablet computer. It may also include field staff reporting system or customer call planning, replacing the manual ones, among many others.

The changes that digitization may ensure are generally incremental in nature. It can help doing many routines much easier, at a lesser cost and in lesser time, facilitating business activities and operations. However, just as any other industry, digitization is unlikely to fetch any fundamental transformation – or help taking a quantum leap in productivity or overall effectiveness of a pharma business, as well.

B. Digitalization:

Digitalization is defined as the use of digital technologies to change business models and provide new revenue generating opportunities with significant value-creation. It is, therefore, the process of moving a business into the digital world. Similarly, in pharma business ‘Digitalization’ or digital transformation can be achieved by digitalizing everything that can be digitized through integration of digital technologies in different platforms to create and deliver game changing values to patients and other stakeholders.

Interactive question and answer of ‘Siri’ – built into iPhone of Apple Inc. is an important example of digitalization – going way beyond digitization. Another interesting example of digitalizing business, creating path breaking values, can be drawn from the entertainment space – e.g. film and television industry. These businesses offer streaming or downloading facility for movies or TV-serials to viewers, anywhere at any time, at a reasonable price. A few important examples in this area may include, Netflix, Amazon Prime or Hotstar. For digitization, an equivalent example, as I said before, could be DVDs.

In fact, one of the largest vendors of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software and related enterprise applications – SAP made an interesting statement in this regard. It said, having done digitization for many decades, which has immensely increased the efficiency of its processes, SAP is now on its way to digitalization.

Digitalization in context of pharma:

The May 30, 2017 article on ‘Pharma Digitalization’, published in the European Pharmaceutical Review (EPR) says pharma business is undergoing a concurrent transformation on multiple, unrelated areas changing the whole product lifecycle from early drug development to manufacturing and patient care.

Consequently, improving patient outcomes is becoming a key challenge for the pharma companies. Garnering capability to provide real-time information about the disease condition to patients, and collecting patient data for care analytics to improve the treatment process, are emerging as critical ingredients for quantum value addition to pharma business.

Digitalization of business processes with integrated technology can help pharma players to address several major patient care challenges. These may include good compliance to treatment and effective chronic disease management, which can also help them to create hundreds of billions of dollars in value.

Reading the writing on the wall clearly, some pharma giants, like Novartis, GSK and Novo Nordisk have started investing in partnerships and new business models with technology companies, such as Google, IBM and Qualcomm. Even the traditional device manufacturers – Apple, Samsung and Nokia are now researching beyond the wellness products, looking to the patient care market. All this will substantially improve the patient care processes, where the patient care data will become the new source of innovation and competitiveness.

Likewise, digitalization of pharma sales and marketing would entail transformative value creation through integrated digital technologies in all the related functions. As stated above, it should reach right up to the patient and other stakeholder needs, meeting expectations in effective prevention, management and treatment of a a plethora of disease conditions.

Conclusion:

To effectively compete and be winners in the new paradigm, Indian pharma players will necessarily need to step out of the comfort zone. Venturing into the complex world of digital transformative processes will eventually become an essential quality – not just for excellence, but survival too. This is a highly specialized area of qualified experts, both for training and hand-holding.

The clock has started ticking for pharma CEOs to lead from the front. In tandem, they would require empowering a team of the right people with hands-on experience, expertise and passion. The team should ideally consist of individuals, both from within and outside the organization. Their only mandate should be to translate the digital transformation of the organization into reality, with quantum value creation, within a given time-frame.

The choice is, therefore, not between digitization and digitalization, regardless of their often use as interchangeable words. The meaning of each is significantly different, which needs to be properly understood. Although, ‘Digitization’ is more visible in the Indian pharma industry than ‘Digitalization’, as on date, this is also a reality that ushering in digital transformation in any business, such as pharma, is not possible sans digitization – but one should not stop there.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Pharma Governance Maladies and Corporate Leadership

Posted on October 2, 2017 by Tapan Ray

On September 26, 2017, two media headlines related to the Indian pharma industry, possibly made many wonder – Are these some of the key reasons prompting the Government to enforce stringent and costly regulations in this sector?

Above revelations came close on the heel of a series of alleged fraudulent, collusive and even criminal behavior of many domestic pharma players, by several overseas regulators, including the US-FDA. Besides international media, similar reports often featured in the national business dailies too. Most of these allegations are related to pharma marketing practices, and drug quality related concerns. In that sense, the core issues of following two news items are no different, and were reported as follows:

“The income tax (IT) investigation wing claims to have unearthed a nexus between a leading pharmaceutical company and doctors, and evidence showing payments running into Crores to the latter for prescribing the company’s medicines.”

Reaching out to Niti Aayog, Indian drug industry lobby groups, “mainly objected to three proposals in the draft policy floated last month: one drug one brand, curbing retailer margins, and mandatory bioavailability and bioequivalence (BA/BE) test for all drugs approved by state regulators and also future renewals.”

Out of these, the objection to mandatory BA/BE tests appears more intriguing to me – for two reasons. First, the news report doesn’t mention the participation of any global pharma company or their lobby groups in this meeting. If true, it would possibly mean, the pharma MNC players operating in India aren’t unduly worried about BA/BE requirements, which are mandatory in other countries of the world, primarily to ensure high generic drug quality standards.

The second one being, when the Indian pharma industry is so vocal on ‘poor quality’ of generic drugs sans brand names, apparently to protect branded generics, why is its lobby groups opposing mandatory BA/BE tests – so critical to address the quality issue. Opposing these tests, citing some ‘reason’, appears absurd. Resolving safety concerns on ‘Unbranded’ generics is nonnegotiable – for patients’ health and safety.

The major incident that snowballed:

It reminds me of the major US-FDA related quality issue involving Ranbaxy of India that eventually snowballed, attracting global media attention. This incident was well covered by Indian Press and Television, as well. As one such business daily reported, the much talked about whistleblower Dinesh Thakur, reportedly claimed that his boss in Ranbaxy made a detailed presentation of the alleged widespread manufacturing lapses and fudging of data in the company first to “a closed-door board of directors meeting in Thailand” in September 2004, and then to its science committee on December 21, 2004. Be that as it may, Ranbaxy subsequently pleaded guilty to several charges by the US-FDA, based on Dinesh Thakur’s testimony, and paid a hefty fine of US$ 550 million. It is worth noting, although Ranbaxy had an immaculate Board of Directors at that time, including distinguished and eminent personalities as the Independent Directors, the company used to be run by the promoters, or in other words, the key shareholders of the company. It may be coincidental that the majority of such incidences reported from India, either related to dubious pharma marketing practices or drug quality standard, may find a curious link with the promoter or the key shareholder driven domestic pharma companies.

The purpose of this article is not to assign blame to anyone, or any organization, but to have an intimate look at the governance process of most of such companies, which is systemic in nature. It may be worth pondering thereafter, whether one can learn the way forward from the credible research reports, available on this important subject.

The doctrine of ‘Maximizing Shareholder Value’:

In many corporate training sessions, especially for the senior management, including pharma industry in India, the above well-known doctrine is emphasized and reemphasized – again and again. It postulates, the ‘corporate managers should make maximizing shareholder value their goal – and that boards should ensure that they do.’

Indian pharma companies predominately being the promoter or the key shareholder driven corporations, choosing ‘maximizing shareholder value’ as the primary corporate mission, I reckon, is not too uncommon, either.

The basic premises of the theory:

The details of this theory were articulated in the 1976 Journal of Financial Economics article “Theory of the Firm,” by Michael Jensen and William Meckling. The concept was further deliberated in the article titled “The Error at the Heart of Corporate Leadership” by Joseph L. Bower and Lynn S. Paine, published in the May-June 2017 issue of Harvard Business Review, and its basic premises were summarized as follows:

Shareholders own the corporation and are “principals” with the original authority to manage the corporation’s business and affairs.
The corporation’s shareholders delegate decision-making authority to the managers and are thus “agents” of the shareholders.
As agents of the shareholders, managers are obliged to conduct the corporation’s business in accordance with shareholders’ desires.
Shareholders want the business to be conducted in a way that maximizes their own economic returns. (The assumption that shareholders are unanimous in this objective is implicit throughout the article.)

A flawed corporate governance model?

Bower and Paine in their above paper lucidly analyze a number of serious flaws in the basic premises of ‘maximizing shareholder value’ model. For example, they indicate that the ultimate responsibility and accountability for good corporate governance, or lack of it, lies squarely with the concerned senior management and the Board of Directors of the company and none else – not even with its large shareholders.

Moreover, the authors caution that this theory’s doctrine of alignment spreads moral hazard throughout a company and narrows management’s field of vision.

Putting it in the context of Indian pharma industry, I reckon, such risks increase alarmingly, when promoters take all management and Governance decisions, with the senior management, including the Board of Directors doing no more than endorsing those, knowingly or unknowingly, just as what happened in case of Ranbaxy, mentioned above.

Providing a more realistic foundation for corporate governance:

Against this backdrop, and accepting the following ground realities, there evolves a critical need to have a more realistic foundation for corporate governance and shareholder engagement, as the above HBR article deliberates:

Corporations are complex organizations whose effective functioning depend on talented leaders and managers.

Corporations can prosper over the long term only if they’re able to learn, adapt, and regularly transform themselves.

Corporations perform many functions in society – such as providing investment opportunities and generating wealth, producing goods and services, creating employment, developing technologies, paying taxes, and making several other significant contributions to the communities in which they operate.

Corporations may have differing objectives and strategies in this regard – such as, what the purpose of a corporation ought to be from a societal perspective may not be quite the same as what its promoters or key shareholders believe those to be.

Corporations must create value for multiple constituencies – such as, companies succeed only if customers want their products, employees want to work for them, suppliers want them as partners, shareholders want to buy their stock, and communities want their presence. In contrast, the ‘creating more shareholder value’ theory’s implied decision prompts that managers should always maximize value for shareholders – oversimplifies this challenge and leads eventually to systematic underinvestment in other important relationships.

Corporations must have ethical standards to guide interactions with all their constituencies, including shareholders and society at large – going beyond forbearance from fraud and collusion, is essential for earning the trust companies need to function effectively over time. ‘Creating more shareholder value’ theory’s ambivalence regarding corporate ethics can set companies up for destructive and even criminal behavior -which generates a need for the costly regulations that agency theory proponents are quick to decry.

All the above eight points, especially the last one, as many consider, are so relevant for the Indian pharma industry, probably more in the promoter-driven ones, as these constitute the bulk of it. It is equally important to understand that corporations are embedded not just in a network of financial systems, but also in a political and socioeconomic matrix, whose health is vital to their sustainability. Thus, changing from ‘‘creation of more shareholder value-centered governance’ to a ‘company-centered governance’ would be more meaningful in today’s paradigm.

The merits of ‘company-centered governance’:

As the Harvard article says, following are some of the merits of changing to a ‘company-centered governance’ from ‘creating more shareholder value-centered governance:’

More board-level attention to succession planning and leadership development
More board time devoted to strategies for the company’s continuing growth and renewal
More attention to risk analysis and political and environmental uncertainty
A strategic (rather than narrowly financial) approach to resource allocation
A stronger focus on investments in new capabilities and innovation
More-conservative use of leverage as a cushion against market volatility
Concern with corporate citizenship and ethical issues that goes beyond legal compliance

Conclusion:

Almost all domestic pharma companies in India are currently family run, mostly by the first or second-generation entrepreneurs, with well-defined and clearly established ownership pattern.

The glorious history of the family run Indian pharma business has started facing a more challenging future, especially in addressing the types of maladies, as epitomized in the above two recent media reports. With the ongoing process of ‘creating more shareholder value’ driven governance – almost totally scripted by the promoter or the key shareholders at the helm, the task ahead remains formidable. Additionally, the reports on Ranbaxy whistleblower’s narrative, prompted many to wonder the role of Independent Directors on the Board of strong promoter driven Indian pharma companies, besides others.

In this scenario, particularly to address the Governance related maladies effectively, a highly competent corporate leadership professionals should be empowered to steer the Indian pharma organizations, in general, from ‘creation of more shareholder value centric governance’ to a well-crafted ‘company centric governance’ process, in a well-calibrated manner and sooner.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Pharma ‘To Endeavor More To Be What It Desires To Appear’

Posted on August 21, 2017 by Tapan Ray

Reputation is one of the most fundamental requirements for long-term sustainability of any business, without facing too much of avoidable distraction, or even a tough headwind from any hostile business environment. This fact is, of course, no-brainer. We all know it, yet continue faltering – often not so very infrequently.

Before proceeding further, let me recapitulate, how has the Oxford Dictionary defined reputation? It says, reputation is ‘the beliefs or opinions that are generally held about someone or something.’ Or in other words, it is ‘a widespread belief that someone or something has a particular characteristic.’

The subsequent logical question then arises – how to gain reputation? Again, this was very aptly captured long ago by none other than Socrates, when he said: ‘The way to gain a good reputation is to endeavor to be what you desire to appear.’

Taking a leaf from this quote, in today’s article, I shall focus on whether pharma is making enough endeavor to be what it desires to appear in the eyes of its stakeholders, and the public at large. If not, what are the ways forward.

Not all of it is pharma’s own creation:

The host of reasons for pharma’s adverse public image, may not necessarily be its own creation. Some of these could well be lying miles away from its operational domain. For example, articles such as, what appeared on July 7, 2017 in the BMJ titled, ‘We need to end cut practice in Indian healthcare,’ doesn’t seem to be much related to pharma’s direct business operations. But in many respects, the subsequent unprecedented announcement of the Maharashtra government on enacting a new law called the “Cut practices in Medical Services Act, 2017”, casts a darker shadow, not just on the doctors’ reputation, but also covers the health care industry, in general, including pharma.

Nevertheless, a commonly perceived nexus between the doctors and pharma companies, or for that matter alleged malpractices in many hospitals, also prompts a rub-off adverse perception – indirect though, on pharma’s overall reputation. Such barriers also need to be carefully navigated through.

While moving towards this direction, effective management of consumer perception is also of critical importance. For, reputation is a complex blend of both reality and perception, where perception is believed to contribute around 66 percent, and reality – about 33 percent, in various organizational efforts to gain business reputation.

Changing from a dogmatic to pragmatic approach:

The above area of adverse perceptual impact causing further dents in pharma’s reputation, is understandable, as these are beyond its control, as such. Nonetheless, what is difficult to fathom, why does pharma continue to remain so dogmatic in recreating a make-believe image, that continuously gets negated by its own actions on the ground.

To illustrate this point when I briefly look back, one of the critical themes around which, especially the research-based global drug industry has been trying to gain reputation, over a long period of time, is woven around – ‘innovation’. Concerned pharma players keep trying to gain consumers’ trust and reputation by trying to make them believe that pharma is one of the most innovative industries in the world, thus possibly trustworthy.

The same tradition continues even today. Millions of dollars are being spent through various communication and advocacy campaigns, hoping to drive home this point. Nonetheless, the current reality is that the pharma consumers hardly believe that the industry is particularly innovative today. I discussed that point in my article of July 26, 2017, appeared in this blog.

Therefore, I shall not dwell on that area again. Instead, let me try to arrive at, how is this dogmatic approach going way off the mark from consumers’ expectations, repeatedly. More importantly, why it calls for a rather pragmatic approach from pharma to gain reputation, taking well into consideration – what the patients’ or patient groups’ expectations are from the industry, based on meticulous research findings.

Patients’ recent perception on pharma reputation:

A recent report by ‘PatientView’ – a leading specialist in understanding the patient movement, and its impact on health care, captured perceptions of patient groups on the pharma industry, in this area. The report is titled, ‘Corporate Reputation of Pharma in 2016 – The Patient Perspective.’ The phrase ‘corporate reputation’, as defined in the study, is the extent to which pharma companies are meeting the expectations of patients and patient groups, and was assessed by the following three types of measures:

How pharma’s corporate reputation compares with that of seven other healthcare-industry sectors.
How pharma’s corporate reputation has changed over the past five years.
How good or bad the pharma industry is at various activities.

The results of this study are based on a survey conducted between November 2016 to early-February 2017 on 1,463 patient groups; 46+ specialties in 105 countries. 47 pharma companies were assessed on seven indicators of corporate reputation, as follows:

Patient centricity
Patient information
Patient safety
Useful products
Transparency
Integrity
Effectiveness of patient-group relationships

47 companies surveyed include names, such as AbbVie, Allergan, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Hospira, Janssen, Merck & Co, Merck KgaA, Mylan, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, Takeda, Teva, UCB and Valeant.

Some of the key findings of this survey are as follows:

In 2016, just 37.9 percent of respondent patient group thought that the pharma industry had an “Excellent” or “Good” corporate reputation. Whereas 44.7 percent of patient groups had said the same in 2015.

In 2016, only 23 percent of patient groups thought that pharma’s corporate reputation had improved over the previous five years. Whereas 28 percent of patient groups had said the same in 2015.

In 2016 (as in 2015), pharma continued to be ranked 5th out of eight healthcare sectors (ahead only of generics, for-profit, and not-for-profit health insurers).

Patient groups thought that pharma’s ability to conduct activities of importance to them declined in 2016. Patient groups were more sceptical in 2016 even about pharma’s ability to innovate, which is an important patient-group measure of confidence in the industry.

Regarding the quality of pharma’s innovation across several geographic areas: patient groups in New Zealand expressed the least confidence in pharma’s ability to innovate; and those in Greece, the most.

What should pharma do?

Keeping the above findings in perspective, the consequent question that arises in this area is, what should pharma do to improve its patient centricity, and thereby to gain trust and reputation?

It is interesting to note that pharma companies should ‘consider the cost of drugs’, has featured as one of the top three, in the 14-point plan proposed by the 460+ patient groups in the above study, as follows:

Partner with patient groups
Provide more or better patient services
Consider the cost of drugs
Try to understand patients
Develop better medicines
Be transparent
Involve patient groups in the design
Look at continuity of care
Listen to patients
Help patients in a holistic way
Increase participation in clinical trials
Offer training
Concentrate on safety
Tailor services to individual patients

Conclusion:

Thus, the bottom line is, among various stakeholders, patients and patient groups, play a critical role in pharma to gain reputation. Winning their trust is widely considered as the substratum to get this process rolling, effectively. In that sense, pharma players individually, and the pharma industry collectively, need to have innovative, and game changing strategic plans to win the patients’ trust, for a long-term gain in reputation.

Repeatedly trying to communicate that life-changing medicines exist, because of pharma’s years of efforts in painstaking research and development that are hugely expensive and time-intensive, doesn’t seem to be working much, any longer. Patients are increasingly expecting improved access to drugs for various treatments, coupled with related value added services, from the drug players.

In such a scenario, many top drug companies, on the other hand, publicly express: ‘we are patient-centric’. This creates a logjam, as it were, to take pharma’s ‘patient centric’ endeavors from this point to where the patients’ expectations really are. Thus, I reckon, it’s time for pharma to deeply introspect and act on what Socrates had advised a long time ago, ‘‘The way to gain a good reputation is to endeavor to be what you desire to appear.’

By: Tapan J. Ray

Pharma’s Late Realization

Posted on August 14, 2017 by Tapan Ray

Technology, by and large, is impacting almost every part of our life. Interestingly, some of these, like mobile phones and desktop computers, found their initial uses, mostly as trendy status symbols of relatively rich and high ranking corporate honchos, before getting merged as essential tools in our everyday life, as it were.

Today’s digital world empowers people to virtually doing anything – literally, such as getting an online education, communicating with people – both in audio and video format, getting any routine medical test or household work done, transferring money, making any bill or other payments, buying travel-theater-concert tickets, or ordering any item online from home or wherever one chooses to, besides umpteen number of other things. A large global population now spends more time on communication in the virtual world, than face to face communication with physical presence.

Similarly, application of technology, especially digital, has radically transformed for the better, the way several companies in many industries have rewritten their respective playbooks of critical business processes. It starts from the generation credible data of humongous volume, critical analysis of those before initiation of the planning process, spanning across the endpoint of making consumers pay for the products or services willingly, while achieving both financial and non-financial business goals. In tandem, available cutting edge digital technology is being leveraged by these companies for developing both new products and processes, including the rejuvenation of many stagnating businesses.

Whether the pharma industry, as well, has started leveraging digital technology optimally or not, was discussed in the A.T. Kearney Report – “New Medicine for a New World, Time for Pharma to Dive into Digital”. It aptly captured the overall situation in this area for pharma a few years ago, by saying: ‘Pharma’s customers increasingly live and interact in a digital world. The industry has been dipping a toe in the digital waters, but now it’s time to take the plunge.’

In today’s article, I shall discuss on the current-status in this area, as some respected pharma veterans, still nurturing ‘traditional thought pattern’, keep displaying skepticism in this area, though indirectly. Nevertheless, directly they seem to keep their feet in two boats, probably for obvious reasons.

A disruptive change that can’t be ignored:

It’s a reality that we now live in a digital world. The speed of which is fast gaining momentum, and that too as a critical disruptive change agent. Interestingly, this is happening despite the existence of a digital divide, which I discussed in one of my previous articles.

That this trend is so recent has also been underscored by the above A.T. Kearney Report. It reemphasized, the way we interact has changed more in the past 10 years than in the previous 50, and this change is reshaping the society itself. It’s hard to believe that apps, social media, and everything that surrounds them date back to no earlier than 2007. With the expansion of interconnected Internet-enabled devices, the boundaries between the real and the virtual are increasingly getting more obscure.

When it comes to pharma industry, as various research studies highlight, an intriguing cautious approach for embracing digital prevails, unlike many other industrial sectors. This is despite facing numerous challenges in navigating through external business environment, and meeting stakeholders’ changing expectations.

“But the industry has now reached a tipping point: it has to put an end to hiding behind the challenges of engaging with its stakeholders digitally and stop treating digital as an add-on to existing operations. Rather, it needs to embrace a digital first engagement model with fundamental consequences for its organization and capabilities,” suggests the above A.T. Kearney report.

This fast-evolving disruptive change, I reckon, can only be ignored at one’s own peril. Nonetheless, the good news is, some pharma players have now slowly but surely, started embracing digital to transform their business processes, in search of excellence.

‘Digital India’ initiative to facilitate the process:

Recognizing the increasing importance of digital even across the public space, on July 2, 2015, ‘Digital India’ campaign was launched by the Government of India. This is intended to ensure the availability of public services for all, by making everybody in the country digitally-empowered. The campaign is expected to make India a leader in digitally delivering health, education and banking services, according to information released by the government.

It is generally expected that the creation of a robust digital ecosystem within the country, would facilitate the Indian pharma players, as well, while leveraging this state of the art technology for a quantum leap in business productivity.

The current status – Global pharma industry:

The July 11, 2017 article titled, “Pharma turns to big data to gauge care and pricing”, appeared in the Financial Times, highlighted an interesting point. It described, how the global pharma industry, which has been slow in responding to the fast-evolving digital environment, is now realizing its critical importance. This reckoning gets more strengthened, as it confronts tough external challenges, such as pricing pressures, huge volume of patient data, and more empowered consumers. The article also points out, how digitization has started changing the way pharma players used to interact with doctors, patients and other important stakeholders.

The seriousness in approach of several global pharma majors in leveraging digital technology, to take a quantum leap in the business productivity, is fast increasing. It is evident from the leading drug makers seeking out different skills and personality traits in employees to lead such digital transformation.

Moving towards this direction, Germany based Merck appointed its first chief digital officer, last year. The person holds a degree in biomedical engineering, with a tech background. Following a somewhat different approach, Boehringer Ingelheim – Europe’s biggest private pharma player, hired a new Chief Financial Officer from Lufthansa, who oversees a new digital “lab”, recruiting data specialists and software developers.

Similarly, Swiss drug major – Novartis, also appointed its global head of digital business development and licensing. The head of Human Resources of the company has reportedly expressed, “We’re already seeing how real-time data capture can help analyze patient populations and demographics, to make it easier to recruit patients for clinical trials, and how real-time data-capture devices, like connected sensors and patient engagement apps, are helping to create remote clinical trials that aren’t site-dependent.”

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) too, reportedly employs more than 50 people to run webinars with physicians – a “multichannel media team” that did not exist five years ago. It has also begun hiring astrophysicists to work in research and development, keen to deploy their ability to visualize huge data sets. According to GSK, these qualities are especially important as the company seeks to use artificial intelligence to help spot patterns and connections amid a mass of information.

That said, global pharma industry still has a considerable distance to cover before it exploits digital technology as successfully and automatically as many other sectors, the article concludes.

The current status – Indian pharma industry:

Veeva Systems Inc.– a leader in the cloud based software for the global life sciences industry, has well captured in a recent report the current status of the Indian pharma industry on the adaptation of digital technology in business.

The report titled ‘The Veeva 2016 Industry Survey: Digital in Indian Pharma’ focuses on the current state of application of digital technology in the business processes of pharma companies in the country. The survey represents the views of respondents from commercial excellence, marketing, sales and IT at domestic and multinational pharmaceutical companies operating in India.

It highlighted, though the pharma companies have remained mostly Rep centric, several of them now realize the importance of increasing focus on customer engagement. Moreover, while the desired access to important physicians has gone down, expectations of the Health Care Professionals (HCPs) have increased, significantly. Alongside, the Government is bringing in more regulations, besides price controls.

The report also captures, though digital technology is slowly making way in the pharma marketing tool kit, it has been more an incremental effort to various Sales Force Excellence projects of the respective companies.

The key findings of the study are as follows:

Nearly two-thirds of respondents agree digital is yet to become a part of their overall pharma DNA, and one-third believe digital is well integrated within their organization.

While companies have initiated digital activities in various silos, one-third of the respondents believe these are tactical in nature, rather than strategic.

21 percent of respondents feel digital should be driven by management, along with 24 percent voting for Digital Marketing. However, with customer relationship at the core of business activities, 31 believe Sales Force and Commercial Excellence are also responsible for the transition.

With integrated digital strategy, pharma companies aim to increase customer touch points through multichannel (93 percent) and improve customer engagement (79 percent). The other benefits of integrated approach are a greater competitive advantage, reduce execution gaps, improve content creation and delivery, and enrich customer data.

59 percent of the respondents believe the industry will see a digital transformation in the next 1-3 years.

69 percent of survey respondents agree it’s time for Indian pharma to think about digital strategically.

The top two challenges that pharma companies face in institutionalizing digital were identified as

Organizational readiness
Lack of digital as a strategy

This latest India specific survey brings to the fore that pharma players will have to move over from patching up old systems or building incremental solutions. They need to realize that digital opportunity is not an incremental approach.

Keeping this in perspective, the study suggests that pharma companies’ approach to digital needs to change substantially in India. This is essential to truly leverage the power of digital that will open the new possibilities to more meaningfully engage, communicate, and be relevant to all the stakeholders for business success.

The traditional face to face “visits” are just not enough for desired productivity, and deriving an adequate return on investments. On the contrary, a time has come to critically evaluate whether various Sales Force Excellence programs are producing increasingly diminishing rate of return on investments, Therefore, this communication process ought to be augmented with innovative digital interventions, for the reasons explained earlier.

With a few organizations leading the way, digital is expected to become a mainstream conversation, ultimately. Thus, Indian pharma players need to think about digital from a long-term perspective, as opposed to the current way of setting short term goals, which may actually become barriers in your digital success, as the survey concludes.

Conclusion:

Pharmaceutical industry, in general, is yet to keep pace with many other sectors, first in acknowledging the game changing power of digital technology, and then adopting it with a crafty application of mind. Nevertheless, the good news is, some drug companies, especially in the global arena, have increased their focus in this area, as elaborated above.

In India, as the recent survey indicates, over 66 percent of respondents admit that digital is yet to become a part of the overall pharma DNA, while the remaining ones believe that digital is well integrated within their organization. Interestingly, even in that group, many would require moving over from patching up old systems or building incremental solutions. It is important for them to realize, sooner, that digital opportunity is not an incremental approach.

‘Digital India’ campaign of the incumbent Government, assures fast strengthening of desirable digital ecosystem in the country. Expected consequential strong wind on the sail must be made use of, effectively. As the saying goes ‘better late than never’, pharma’s late realization of the game changing power of digital technology is much better than no realization at all, which many naysayers indirectly pontificate, of course, under a facade.

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: industry

For Patient-Centricity: Emerging a C-Suite Role

Antimicrobial Resistance: A Recent Perspective

Digitization or Digitalization: What’s Seen More in Indian Pharma?

Pharma Governance Maladies and Corporate Leadership

Pharma ‘To Endeavor More To Be What It Desires To Appear’

Pharma’s Late Realization