Drug Innovation and Pharma M&As: A Recent Perspective

Posted on June 4, 2018 by Tapan Ray

The 21st CEO Survey 2018 of PwC highlights a curious contradiction. This is based on what the Global Pharma Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) had articulated regarding their business outlook for 2018 and beyond. The report says: Despite highly publicized hand wringing over geopolitical uncertainty, corporate misbehavior, and the job-killing potential of artificial intelligence, the CEOs expressed surprising faith and optimism in the economic and business environment worldwide, at least over the next 12 months.

As the survey highlights, beyond 2018, CEO sentiment turns more cautious. They expressed more confidence in revenue growth prospects over the longer term than the immediate future. In the largest pharma market in the world – the United States (US), acquisitions appeared to be the core part of the 2018 growth playbook for the CEOs. More of them plan to drive growth with new Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) for this year. The US CEOs intent in this area came out to be more than their peers globally.

Thus, in this year we may expect to witness several M&A deals, at least by the pharma majors based in the US. As the saying goes, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, the success of any strategic M&A process should get clearly reflected in its revenue, profit and cost synergies over a period of time, consistently.

In this article, I shall try to look back, and attempt to fathom the net outcome of M&As in the pharma sector. Its key drivers for the global and Indian pharma players are somewhat different, though. In this piece, I shall focus on the M&A activities of the global companies, and my next article will focus on the Indian players in this area.

2018 – best start to a year of healthcare deal making:

The finding of the 21st CEO Survey 2018 that more global pharma CEOs plan to drive growth with new M&A for this year, has been reiterated in the January 22, 2018 issue of the Financial Times (FT). The article titled “Big Pharma makes strongest start to M&A for a decade” writes: “Healthcare companies have announced almost $30bn of acquisitions since the beginning of the year in the sector’s strongest start for deal making in more than a decade, as Big Pharma scrambles to replace ageing blockbusters by paying top dollar for new medicines.”

Big names involved and the reasons:

On February 18, 2018, an article published by the BSIC wrote, the M&A value in the healthcare sector recorded its strongest start to a year in more than a decade, excluding 2000, with almost USD32bn of global deals announced since the start of January 2018. Of these USD32bn, Sanofi SA and Celgene Corporation performed almost a combined USD26bn value of acquisitions for the American Bioverativ Inc. the cell therapy provider Juno Therapeutics, respectively.

As many would know, the FT also wrote in the above piece that Sanofi is trying to offset declining sales of its top-selling insulin – Lantus, which has lost market share following the introduction of cheaper biosimilar versions. Celgene is preparing for the loss of patent protection on its top cancer medicine, Revlimid, which will face generic competition from 2022 at the latest.

Is new drug innovation a key driver of M&A?

The core intent of M&A is undoubtedly creating greater value for all the stakeholders of the merged entity. Nevertheless, such value creation predominantly involving the following two goals, revolve around new drug innovation activities, as follows:

New value creation and risk minimization in R&D initiatives
Acquisition of blockbuster or potential blockbuster drugs to improve market share and market access, besides expanding the consumer base.

There could be a few other factors, as well, that may drive a pharma player to go for a similar buying spree, which we shall discuss later in this article.

However, in the international scenario, with gradually drying up of R&D pipeline, and the cost of drug innovation arguably exceeding well over USD 2 billion, many companies try to find easier access to a pipeline of new drug compounds, generally at the later stage of development, through M&A.

Thus, I reckon, one sees relatively higher number of big ticket M&As in the pharmaceutical industry than most other industrial sectors and that too, very often at a hefty price.

At a hefty price?

To give an example, the year 2018 has just begun and the pharma acquirers have agreed to pay an average premium of 81 percent – a number that is well above the 42 percent paid on average in 2017, according to Dealogic. The examples are the 63.78 percent bid premium paid by Sanofi SA on Bioverativ Inc. and the 78.46 percent premium paid by Celgene Corporation to acquire Juno Therapeutics.

A key reason of paying this kind of high premium, obviously indicate an intent of the acquirer to have a significant synergy in drug innovation activities of the merged company.

Do drug innovation activities rise, or decline post M&A?

A paper titled “Research: Innovation Suffers When Drug Companies Merge”, published by the Harvard Business Review (HBR) on August 03, 2016 answers this question. This research involves, pre and post M&A detailed analysis of 65 pharma companies. After detailed scrutiny of the data, the authors wrote: “Our results very clearly show that R&D and patenting within the merged entity decline substantially after a merger, compared to the same activity in both companies beforehand.”

Having also analyzed companies that were developing drugs in similar therapeutic areas, but hadn’t merged, the paper recorded: “We applied a market analysis, the same one used by the European Union in its models, to analyze how the rivals of the merging firms change their innovation activities afterward. On average, patenting and R&D expenditures of non-merging competitors also fell – by more than 20% – within four years after a merger. Therefore, pharmaceutical mergers seem to substantially reduce innovation activities in the relevant market as a whole.”

‘Other critical objectives’ may also drive pharma M&A:

As I had indicated before, besides attaining synergy in innovation activities at an optimum cost through M&A, there may also be other important drivers for a company to initiate this process. One such example is available from Sanofi-Aventis merger in 2004.

Just to recapitulate, Sanofi was formed in 2004 when Sanofi-Synthélabo (created from the 1999 merger of Sanofi and Synthélabo) acquired Aventis (the result of the 1999 merger of Hoechst and Rhône-Poulenc).

A June 2016 case study of the Sanofi-Aventis merger titled ‘Does M&A create value in the pharmaceutical sector?’, and published by HEC Paris – considered a leading academic institution in Europe and worldwide, brings out the ‘other factors’ driving pharma M&A.

The research paper says that Sanofi-Aventis deal ‘is the perfect example of the paramount importance that external factors have on M&A activity, which sometimes are more critical than the amount of value created from a particular deal.’ It further says, ‘facing a changing pharmaceutical industry (heightened competition and consolidation trend), Sanofi-Synthélabo decided to merge with Aventis as a defense strategy.’

This strategy ensured, even if the merger had not ended being a successful one, it would achieve the following two ‘other critical factors’:

Manage to save Sanofi-Synthélabo from being acquired and disappearing.
Comply with the French government pressure to create a national champion in the pharma industry, to ultimately benefit the French population.

Conclusion:

In the pharma business, M&A has now become a desirable strategic model for shareholder value creation. In the global perspective, one of the most important drivers for this initiative is, greater and less expensive access to new drug innovation or innovative new drugs, beside a few others, as discussed above.

In-depth expert analysis has also shown that “R&D and patenting within the merged entity decline substantially after a merger, compared to the same activity in both companies beforehand.” Moreover, as other independent researchers have established that inside the merged companies, there’s a great deal of disruption in many areas, including people, besides the global drug market getting less competitive with declining number of players.

Pharma M&As may well be any stock market’s dream and could a boost the merged company’s performance in short to medium term. But the important points to ponder are: Does it help improve drug innovation or its cost related issues over a reasonably long time-frame? Does it not ultimately invite even more problems of different nature, creating a vicious cycle, as it were, putting the sustainable performance of the company in a jeopardy?

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.

Indian Pharma: Optimism, Concern and Retaining Trust

Posted on October 9, 2017 by Tapan Ray

As many would know, the significance of trust is profound. It is virtually all-pervasive. Building trust is fundamental in retaining any relationship – be it in the family, society or even in business, such as pharmaceuticals. For long-term success and sustainability of any enterprise, trust is of strategic importance, and will continue to remain so.

In that sense, it is interesting to note that a growing number of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of a variety of corporate business entities, including pharmaceutical and also from India, have started experiencing a new challenge in a new paradigm, more than ever before. The rapid pace of evolution of the state of the art technology is further complicating the quagmire. CEOs, in general, are realizing the hard way that ‘in an increasingly digitalized world, it’s harder for businesses to gain and retain people’s trust’, keeping their nose to the grindstone of the conventional business process.

This feeling has been well-captured, among other issues, in the 20^th CEO Survey titled, “Gaining from connectivity without losing trust”, conducted by PwC. The participating CEOs mostly believe that social media could have a negative impact on the level of trust in their industry over the next five years. With this trend, ‘as new technologies and new uses of existing technologies proliferate, they envisage new dangers emerging – and old ones getting worse.’ 1,379 CEOs were reportedly interviewed from 79 countries, including 106 from India in PwC’s 20^th CEO Survey.

In the context of Indian pharma sector, the above finding is unlikely to raise many eyebrows, rather be construed as an obvious one. In this article, keeping the above as the backdrop, I shall discuss what the Indian CEOs recently expressed regarding their near-term business performance. After analyzing their confidence level on business growth, together with critical concerns, I shall try to gauge the quality of interconnection between the critical success requirements for business growth, and the optimism they voiced, drawing relevant data from PwC’s 20^th CEO Survey, and other important sources.

Indian CEO confidence in business growth:

CEOs confidence, or optimism or pessimism about the business growth prospect of their companies is often used as a measure of ‘Business Confidence’. Financial Times defined ‘Business Confidence’ as “an economic indicator that measures the amount of optimism or pessimism that business managers feel about the prospects of their companies/organizations. It also provides an overview of the state of the economy.” A score above 50 indicates positive confidence while a score above 75 would indicate strong positive confidence.

According to published data, ‘Business Confidence’ in India increased to 64.10 in the first quarter of 2017 from 56.50 in the fourth quarter of 2016 with an. average 58.08 from 2005 until 2017, reaching an all-time high of 71.80 in the first quarter of 2007, and a record low of 45.70 in the third quarter of 2013.

More recently, as per Press Release dated September 22, 2017 of the National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER), ‘Business Confidence’ Index fell by 2.5 per cent in July 2017 over April 2017 on a quarter-on-quarter basis, for different reasons.

PwC’s 20^th CEO Survey, by and large, captures similar optimism, as it says: “Nearly three quarters of India’s CEOs are very confident about their company’s prospects for revenue growth over the next 12 months as opposed to 64% in the previous year. In terms of optimism, CEOs in India surpass their global counterparts (38%) and their counterparts in China (35%) and Brazil (57%).”

Interestingly, as the report says, the motivation behind high CEO optimism is primarily driven by those factors, which are being widely discussed, at least, over a decade, such as favorable demographic profile, rising income levels and urbanization.

A mismatch:

Remarkably higher confidence level of the Indian CEOs on business growth, as compared to their global counterparts, is indeed encouraging. Nevertheless, while exploring the reasons behind the same, a glaring mismatch surface between high level of CEO optimism and their concern on uncertain economic growth, as PwC’s 20^th CEO Survey indicates. 82 percent of Indian CEOs expressed concern about uncertain economic growth in the country, in this study. A staggering 81 percent of them perceive over-regulation and protectionist policies and trends, as serious threats to their growth ambitions. Intriguingly, 64 percent of CEOs in India are concerned about protectionism as opposed to 59 percent globally, as the report flags.

The concern about uncertain economic growth in the country has also been voiced by many economists. For example, in an article, published by The Times of India on October 04, 2017, Ruchir Sharma – Chief Global Strategist and head of the Emerging Markets Equity team at Morgan Stanley Investment Management, wrote: “The global economy is enjoying its best year of the decade, with a worldwide pick up in GDP and job growth, and very few economies have been left behind. India is one of the outliers, with GDP growth slowing and unemployment rising.”

Sharma further added: “The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) says that all 45 economies that it tracks will grow this year, the first time this has happened since 2007, the year before the global financial crisis led to a worldwide recession. Moreover, three quarters of all the countries will grow faster this year than they did last year; India is in the slumping minority, with GDP growth now expected to decelerate this year.”

This mismatch throws more questions than answers.

Wherewithal required to meet expectation:

It goes without saying that Indian CEOs must have required wherewithal to achieve whatever growth they think is achievable in their respective businesses. Besides financial resources, this will also involve having both, soft skills – which are basically ‘people skills,’ and the hard skills – that include an individual’s technical skill set, along with the ability to perform specific tasks for the organization.

A. Soft skills:

Indian CEOs identified ‘leadership’, ‘creativity and innovation’, ‘adaptability’ and ‘problem solving’ as the four important soft skills required to achieve the key business goals, according to the 20^th CEO Survey, as quoted above.

A mismatch:

Here again, a strong mismatch is visible between the ‘importance of the skill’ and ‘Difficulty in recruiting people with skill’, as experienced by the CEOs:

Skills	Importance of the skill	Difficulty in recruiting people with skill
Leadership	98	73
Creativity and innovation	95	74
Adaptability	98	66
Problem solving	99	64

(Source: PwC’s 20^th CEO Survey)

B. Hard skills:

Adaptation of any technology involves people with required hard skill sets in any organization. Currently, various state of the art technology platforms and tools, including digital ones, are absolutely necessary not just in areas like, research and development or manufacturing, but also for charting grand strategic pathways in areas, such as sales and marketing.

This is quite evident from PwC’s 20^th CEO Survey data. While 76 percent of Indian CEOs participating in the survey expressed concerns about rapidly changing customer behavior, 77 percent of them highlighted the need to create differentiation in their products and offerings, by managing data better. Both these can be well addressed by digital intervention. Interestingly, 81 percent of CEOs in India have stated that it is important to have digital skills, and 66 percent have already added digital training to their organizations’ learning programs.

A mismatch:

The intent of having adequate hard skill, such as digital technology, within an organization is indeed laudable. However, here too a key mismatch stands out regarding their overall perception of the digitizes word. This is evident when 73 percent of CEOs participating in this survey felt that it is harder for businesses to keep and gain trust in an increasingly digitized world.

On the contrary, a 2017 report of EY, titled ‘Reinventing pharma sales and marketing through digital in India’ says: “Digitization can not only enhance trust, transparency and brand equity, but also generate new revenue streams beyond the pill.”

The report further says: “Since 2000, digital disruption has demolished 52% of Fortune 500 companies. These companies have either gone bankrupt, been acquired or ceased to exist. The pace of transformation has increased, competition has intensified and business models have been profoundly disrupted. This shift is happening at breakneck speed across industries, and pharma can no longer be an exception. Customers have already embraced technological changes, through their many digital touch points, and pharma must look toward digital to re-imagine the customer experience. The urgency of acting is acute. It is time that pharma companies in India took a step back and re-envisioned digital as a core strategic enabler.”

I am, therefore, not quite sure about the thought process behind this perception of the CEOs in the digitized world. Instead, by increasing business process transparency, digitized world helps gaining and retaining trust not just of the customers, but all stakeholders, including the employees and the Government, further strengthening the relationship. This is now a well-established fact.

Conclusion:

While analyzing the optimism of Indian CEOs for business growth in the near future, alongside the key concerns, it appears, they are quite perturbed on retaining trust of the stakeholders, especially the customers. More importantly, a telltale mismatch is visible between their level of business confidence, and the reality on the ground – including wherewithal needed to translate this optimistic outlook into reality.

Such incongruity, especially in the Indian pharma sector, calls for a quick reconciliation. Ferreting out relevant facts for the same, I reckon, will be the acid test for evaluating the fundamental strength behind CEOs’ confidence for near-term business growth in India.

In tandem, reasonable success in creating a high degree of trust and transparency in the DNA of their respective organizations, will undoubtedly be pivotal for this optimism coming to fruition. The name of the game for business excellence in this complex scenario is – breaking status quo with lateral thinking.

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.

High Innovation-Cost Makes Cancer Drugs Dear: A Fragile Argument?

Posted on September 18, 2017 by Tapan Ray

Cancer is a major cause of high morbidity and mortality in India, just many other countries, according to a report of the World Health Organization (W.H.O). While deaths from cancer worldwide are projected to continue to rise to over 1.31 million in 2030, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) estimates that India is likely to have over 1.73 million new cases of cancer and over 8,80,000 deaths due to the disease by 2020 with cancers of breast, lung and cervix topping the list.

Cancer treatment is beyond the reach of many:

Despite cancer being one of the top five leading causes of death in the country, with a major impact on society, its treatment is still beyond the reach of many. There are, of course, a number of critical issues that need to be addressed in containing the havoc that this dreaded disease causes in many families – spanning across its entire chain, from preventive measures to early diagnosis and right up to its effective treatment. However, in this article, I shall focus only on the concern related to affordable treatment with appropriate cancer with medicines.

To illustrate this point, I shall quote first from the address of the Chief Minister of Maharashtra during inauguration of Aditya Birla Memorial Hospital Cancer Care Center on November 26, 2016. He said: “Cancer is the dreadful disease of all the time and for Maharashtra it is a big challenge as we are infamously at number two position in cancer cases in the country as after Uttar Pradesh, most cases are found here.” Incidentally, UP is one of the poorest state of India.

Underscoring that the biggest challenge before the technology is to bring down the cost of the cancer treatment and make it affordable and accessible for all, the Chief Minister (CM) further observed, “although, technological innovation has increased in last one decade, the accessibility and affordability still remain a challenge and I think, we need to work on this aspect.”

A new cancer drug launch vindicates the CM’s point:

The Maharashtra CM’s above statement is vindicated by a national media report of September 13, 2017. It said, Merck & Co of the United States have launched its blockbuster cancer drug ‘Keytruda’ (pembrolizumab) in India, around a year after its marketing approval in the country. Keytruda is expected to be 30 percent cheaper, compared to its global prices, costing Rs 3,75,000 – 4,50,000 to patients for each 21-day dose in India.

The point to take note of, despite being 30 percent cheaper, how many Indian patients will be able to afford this drug for every 3 weeks therapy? Doesn’t it, therefore, endorse the CM’s above submission? Well, some may argue that this exorbitant drug price is directly linked to high costs for its innovation and clinical development. Let me examine this myth now under the backdrop of credible research studies.

Cancer drugs are least affordable in India – An international study:

On June 6, 2016, by a Press Release, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) revealed the results of one of the largest analyses of differences in cancer drug prices between countries worldwide. The researchers calculated monthly drug doses for 15 generic and eight patented cancer drugs used to treat a wide range of cancer types and stages. Retail drug prices in Australia, China, India, South Africa, United Kingdom, Israel, and the United States were obtained predominantly from government websites. The study shows that cancer drug prices are the highest in the United States, and the lowest in India and South Africa.

However, adjusting the prices against ‘GDPcapPPP’ – a measure of national wealth that takes into consideration the cost of living, cancer drugs appeared to be least affordable in India and China. The researchers obtained the ‘GDPcapPPP’ data for each country from the International Monetary Fund and used it to estimate the affordability of drugs.

Why are cancer drug prices so high and not affordable to many?

The most common argument of the research based pharma companies is that the cost of research and development to bring an innovative new drug goes in billions of dollars.

The same question was raised in a series of interviews at the J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference, published by the CNBC with a title “CEOs: What’s missing in the drug pricing debate” on January 11, 2016, where three Global CEOs expressed that the public is getting overly simple arguments in the debate about drug pricing. All three of them reportedly cited three different reasons altogether, as follows:

Eli Lilly CEO said, “Some of the noise you hear about drug pricing neglects the fact that we often must pay deep discounts in a market-based environment where we’re competing in many cases against other alternative therapies, including those low-cost generics.”

Pfizer CEO took a different approach by saying, “if you look at the market, about a decade ago, 54 percent of the pharmaceutical market was genericized; today 90 percent is genericized.”

However, as reported by CNBC, Novartis CEO Joseph Jimenez, focusing on innovation and in context on cancer drugs, argued “innovation has to continue to be rewarded or we’re just not going to be able to see the kind of breakthroughs that we have seen in cancer research, specifically regarding the uses and benefits of the cancer-fighting drug Gleevec. We continued to show that the drug was valuable in other indications in cancer and so we needed to be reared for that innovation and we’re pricing according to that.”

Is drug innovation as expensive and time intensive as claimed to be?

An article titled, “The high cost of drugs is the price we pay for innovation”, published by the World Economic Forum (WEF) on March 28, 2017 reported, “15 spenders in the pharmaceutical industry are investing about US$3 billion in R&D, on average, for each successful new medicine.”

The November 18, 2014 report on the ‘Cost of Developing a New Drug,’ prepared by the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development also announced: “The estimated average pre-tax industry cost per new prescription drug approval (inclusive of failures and capital costs) is: US$ 2,558 million.”

Not everybody agrees:

Interestingly, Professor of Medicine of Harvard University – Jerry Avorn questioned the very basis of this study in the article published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) on May 14, 2015. It’s not just NEJM even the erstwhile Global CEO of GSK – Sir Andrew Witty had questioned such high numbers attributed to R&D cost, around 5 years ago, in 2013. At that time Reuters reported his comments on the subject, as follows:

“The pharmaceutical industry should be able to charge less for new drugs in future by passing on efficiencies in research and development to its customers. It’s not unrealistic to expect that new innovation ought to be priced at or below, in some cases, the prices that have pre-existed them. We haven’t seen that in recent eras of the (pharmaceutical) industry, but it is completely normal in other industries.” Quoting the study of Deloitte and Thomson Reuters on R&D productivity among the world’s 12 top drugmakers that said the average cost of developing a new medicine, including failures, was then US$ 1.1 billion, Witty remarked, “US$ 1 billion price-tag was one of the great myths of the industry.”

A decade after Sir Andrew’s comment, his view was virtually corroborated by yet another research study, published this month. The study reemphasized: “The Tufts analysis lacks transparency and is difficult to judge on its merits. It cannot be properly analyzed without knowing the specific drug products investigated, yet this has been deemed proprietary information and is governed by confidentiality agreements.” I shall discuss this report briefly, in just a bit.

The latest study busts the myth:

The latest study on the subject, titled “Research and Development Spending to Bring a Single Cancer Drug to Market and Revenues After Approval”, has been published in the ‘JAMA Internal Medicine’ on September 11, 2017. It busts the myth that ‘high innovation-cost makes cancer drugs dear,’ providing a transparent estimate of R&D spending on cancer drugs. Interestingly, the analysis included the cost of failures, as well, while working out the total R&D costs of a company.

The report started by saying: “A common justification for high cancer drug prices is the sizable research and development (R&D) outlay necessary to bring a drug to the US market. A recent estimate of R&D spending is US$ 2.7 billion (2017 US dollars). However, this analysis lacks transparency and independent replication.”

The study concludes: “Prior estimates for the cost to develop one new drug span from US$ 320.0 million to US$ 2.7 billion. We analyzed R&D spending for pharmaceutical companies that successfully pursued their first drug approval and estimate that it costs US$ 648.0 million to bring a drug to market. In a short period, development cost is more than recouped, and some companies boast more than a 10-fold higher revenue than R&D spending—a sum not seen in other sectors of the economy. Future work regarding the cost of cancer drugs may be facilitated by more, not less, transparency in the biopharmaceutical industry.” The researchers also established that ‘the median time to develop a drug was 7.3 years (range, 5.8-15.2 years).’

“Policymakers can safely take steps to rein in drug prices without fear of jeopardizing innovation”:

NPR – a multimedia news organization and radio program producer reported: In an invited commentary that accompanies the JAMA Internal Medicine analysis, Merrill Goozner, editor emeritus of the magazine Modern Healthcare, noted that “the industry consistently generates the highest profit margins among all U.S. industries.” Goozner argues that the enormous value of patent protection for drugs far outweighs the inherent riskiness of pharmaceutical research and development, and agrees with the study authors when he writes: “Policymakers can safely take steps to rein in drug prices without fear of jeopardizing innovation,” NPR wrote.

Conclusion:

So, the moot question that surfaces: Is Pharma innovation as expensive and time consuming as claimed to be? If not, it further strengthens the credibility barrier to Big Pharma’s relentless pro-innovation messaging. Is the core intent, then, stretching the product monopoly status as long as possible – with jaw dropping pricing, unrelated to cost of innovation?

Further, incidents such as, shielding patent of a best-selling drug from low priced generic competition, by transferring its patents on to a native American tribe, probably, unveil the core intent of unabated pro-innovation messaging of major global pharma companies. In this particular case, being one among those companies which are seeking to market cheaper generic versions of this blockbuster eye drug, Mylan reportedly has decided to vigorously oppose such delaying tactic of Allergan before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

As a cumulative impact of similar developments, lawmakers in the United States are reportedly framing new laws to address the issue of high drug prices. For example, “California’s Senate Bill 17 would require health insurers to disclose the costs of certain drugs and force pharmaceutical manufacturers to detail price hikes to an agency for posting on a government website. The proposal would also make drugmakers liable to pay a civil penalty if they don’t follow its provisions.”

The myth of ‘high innovation-cost makes cancer drugs dear’ will go bust with such revelations, regardless of the blitzkrieg of self-serving pro-innovation fragile messaging. Alongside, shouldn’t the Indian Policy makers take appropriate measures to rein in cancer drug prices, being free from any apprehension of jeopardizing innovation?

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Disruptive Digital Innovation To Reduce Medication Need?

Posted on May 1, 2017 by Tapan Ray

Application of digital technology in various spheres of not just business, but in our individual day to life also, promises a disruptive change for the better, from the traditional way of doing things and achieving goals – freeing a lot of precious time for us to do much more, and even faster. An impending tsunami of this digital revolution, as it were, is now all pervasive, with various digital application platforms becoming increasingly more cost effective, quite in tandem with the fast pace of cutting-edge innovation. This is so different from what is generally witnessed in the pharma business.

Interestingly, despite high demand for cost effective health care from all over the world, not much progress in this area is still visible within this industry, in general, and particularly in the pharma business. Various reasons may be attributed to this apathy, which I shall not venture to go into, today.

On the other hand, sniffing a huge opportunity in this largely vacant space, many tech giants and startups are investing heavily to make health care of people easier, and at the same time reap a rich harvest, far outpacing the big pharma players.

As I connect the different dots on world-class digital initiatives in the health space, a clear trend emerges on the global scenario. The way Internet revolution, to start with, followed by smartphones and many other wireless digital services is changing the rhythm of life for many making it much easier, is just amazing. These include a plethora of everyday ‘must-do’ and several other functions, such as, precise need-based information gathering, online banking, tax-filing, shopping, payment, social networking, cloud computing and storage, besides a gamut of other digital services.

Similar disruptive digital innovations are expected in the health care space too, involving many long-awaited patient-centric areas, such as, significant reduction in the cost of medication. I discussed a similar issue in one of my earlier articles, published in this blog. However, today, I shall focus on this specific area, in view of its possible huge impact on the traditional pharma business model.

May reduce need of medication:

That tech startups are developing digital tools that reduce the need of medication, was very recently reported in an article titled, ‘Digital disruptors take big pharma beyond the pill’ published in the Financial Times on April 24, 2017. For example, a California-based startup, has reportedly come out with a digital device, smaller than an iPhone and fitted with a cellular chip, that can keep instant and accurate track of blood sugar levels. If the readings fall in the danger zone, an appropriate text message will be automatically generated for the person, such as – “drink two glasses of water and walk for 15 minutes”. The individual can also seek further help over the telephone from a trained coach – a highly-qualified dietitian for further guidance, the article highlights.

The whiz kid developers of wearable digital devices and apps are now intently working on many innovative health care solutions. Many of these can help early disease detection, and chart the risk profile of persons prone to various ailments, based on an enormous amount of well researched scientific data, significantly reducing the need of medication through effective disease prevention and management protocols. For example, there are umpteen evidences, demonstrating that specific moderate physical exercises help control diabetes just as well as medication, when detected early.

Thus, I reckon, such wearable digital devices and apps carry a huge promise to detect many diseases like, diabetes at its very onset or even before, and influence the person to take the necessary measures. In case of diabetes, it could be like, walking a certain distance every day, along with regular dietary advices from a remote center. Won’t such digital interventions work out far cheaper and convenient than lifelong visits to physicians and administration of anti-diabetic drugs?

The notes of the pharma business playbook need to be rewritten?

Let me quickly elaborate this point with an example of a common chronic ailment, say, diabetes. For effective management of this disease, global pharma players prefer to focus on better and better antidiabetic drug development, and after that spend a fortune towards their effective sales and marketing for generating enough prescription demand. Branded generic manufacturers are no different. This is important for all of them as most patients will have to administer the medicines for chronic ailments for a lifetime, incurring significant recurrent expenses for effective disease control. The first access point of such disease management has always been a doctor, initially for diagnosis and then for lifelong treatment.

Disruptive digital innovation could change the first point of intervention from the doctors to various digital apps or devices. These digital tools would be able to check and capture the person concerned predisposition to chronic diseases like, hypertension and diabetes, besides many other serious ailments, including possible cancer. When detected early, primary disease management advice would be available to patients from the app or the device itself, such as, the above-mentioned device for diabetes. If the preventive practices can manage the disease, and keep it under control, there won’t be any serious need to visit a doctor or pop a pill, thus, avoiding any need of active medication.

In that sense, as the above FT article has articulated, ‘rather than buying a pill, people might buy an overall solution for diabetes’ can’t be more relevant. When it happens, it will have a multiplier effect, possibly impacting the volume of consumption of medicines, just as what disease prevention initiatives do. Consequently, the notes of the pharma business playbook may have to be rewritten with right proactive measures.

As reported, the good news is, at least a couple of global pharma players have started fathoming its impact. This is apparent from Sanofi’s collaboration on digital devices and patient support for diabetics, and to some extent with Pfizer on immuno-oncology, using expertise in data analytics to identify new drug targets.

The key players in this ‘healthcare value chain’:

When the digital health care revolution will invade the current space of traditional-health care, it will create both the winners and losers. This was clearly highlighted in an article titled, ‘A digital revolution in healthcare is speeding up’, published by ‘The Economist’ on March 02, 2017.

From this article, it appears, when viewed in the Indian context that primarily two groups of players are currently ‘fighting a war for control’ of this ‘healthcare value chain’, as follows:

Traditional innovators: These are pharma companies, hospitals and medical-technology companies, such as, Siemens, GE and Phillips.

Technology insurgents: These include Microsoft, Apple, Google, and a host of hungry digital entrepreneurs and startups – creating apps, predictive-diagnostics systems and new devices.

Where is the threat to traditional pharma innovators?

This emerging trend could pose a threat to traditional innovators as the individual and collective knowledge base gets wider and wider – the above article envisages. With the medical records getting increasingly digitized with new kinds of patient data available from genomic sequencing, sensors and even from social media, the Government, including many individuals and groups, can now get a much better insight into which treatments work better with avoidable costs, on a value-based yardstick. For example, if digital apps and wearable devices are found even equally effective as drugs, with the least cost, to effectively manage the menace of diabetes in the country, notwithstanding any strong ‘fear arising’ counter propaganda, as we often read and here and there, those will increasingly gain better acceptance from all concerned.

The moot question, therefore, arises, would the drug companies lose significantly to the emerging digital players in the health care arena, such as, Microsoft, Apple and Google?

Tech giants are moving faster:

In several disease areas like, cancer and diabetes, the tech giants are taking longer and bigger strides than the traditional pharma innovators. For example:

Microsoft has vowed to “solve the problem of cancer” within a decade by using groundbreaking computer science to crack the code of diseased cells so that they can be reprogrammed back to a healthy state.

Apple has a secret team working on the holy grail for treating diabetes. The Company has a secret group of biomedical engineers developing sensors to monitor blood sugar levels. This initiative was initially envisioned by Steve Jobs before his death. If successful, the advance could help millions of diabetes patients and turn devices, like Apple Watch, into a must-have.

Verily – the life sciences arm of Google’s parent company Alphabet, has been working on a “smart” glucose-sensing contact lens with Novartis for several years, to detect blood glucose levels through tears, without drawing any blood. However, Novartis has since, reportedly, abandoned its 2016 goal to start testing the autofocus contact lens on people, though it said the groundbreaking product it is “progressing steadily.” It has been widely reported that this could probably be due to the reason that Novartis is possibly mulling to sale its eye care division Alcon.

Calico, which is also owned by Google’s parent company Alphabet, has US$ 1.5 billion in funding to carry out studies in mice, yeast, worms and African naked mole rats for understanding the ageing process, and how to slow it, reports MIT Technology Review.

No wonder, why an article published in Forbes magazine, published on April 15, 2017 considered these tech giants as ‘The Next Big Pharma’. It said, ‘if the innovations of Google and Apple are another wake-up call for the life science industry, which oftentimes has relied on the snooze function of line extensions and extended-release drugs as the source of income and innovation.’

In conclusion:

An effective disease treatment solution based on different digital platforms has a key financial advantage, as well. This is because the process of generation of huge amounts of credible scientific data, through large pre-clinical and clinical trials, establishing the efficacy and safety of new drugs on humans for regulatory approval, is immensely expensive, as compared to the digital ones. Intriguingly, no global pharma player does not seem to have launched any significant digital health care solution for patients to reduce the overall cost of disease burden, be it prevention or management.

In that context, it’s encouraging to note the profound comment of the Chief Operating Officer – Jeff Williams of Apple Inc., made during a radio show – ‘Conversations on Health Care’, as reported by ‘appleinsider.com’ on January 06, 2016. During the interaction, Williams reiterated that the rapid progress of technology in this direction is very real, as ‘Apple’ and other smartphone health app developers are stretching the commoditization of computer technology to serve health sciences. In not so distant future, with relatively inexpensive smartphones and supporting health apps – the doctors and researchers can deliver better standards of living, even in severely under-served areas like Africa, where there are only 55 trained specialists in autism.

Thus, it now looks reasonably certain to me that disruptive digital innovation on various chronic health care solutions is ultimately going to reduce the need of medication for many patients, across the world, including India, significantly.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

In a Quandary of Drug Quality, Price Control, Innovation and Patient Interest in India

Posted on March 6, 2017 by Tapan Ray

The patients in India have every reason to apprehend, whether the prescription drugs that they consume are efficacious, safe and conform to the government approved prices, alongside another important question: Do they affordable access to the fruits of innovation?

The regulator responsible for drug quality in India is responsible for ensuring the first two, and the drug price regulator of the country ensures the remaining two.

Apparently, both these esteemed government bodies, are sure that they are doing the best jobs in their respective areas. Moreover, in these days of social media blitzkrieg, it won’t be uncommon to witness some of them, creating hype on some issues that many feel is better avoided, and at times even contradictory in nature.

Amid this seemingly chaotic continuity of the same or a bit deteriorating scenario, patients are often caught in an unenviable footing.

In this article, I shall discuss on these concerns afresh, quoting a few recent examples. My objective is to encourage all concerned to move away from incessant hype creation by accepting the reality, as the patients feel. This is necessary, because anyone, including the regulators can fall victim of such unfettered developments, at any point of time.

Thus, it may be appropriate for all to jettison any residual arrogance or a faint shade of narcissism, before putting the nose to the grindstone to resolve these pressing issues decisively, for patients’ sake.

Are we consuming effective and safe medicines?

I raised this question first in an article titled, “Are We Taking Safe and Effective Medicines?” published in this blog on November 13, 2013. That deliberation was primarily based on US-FDA ‘import bans’ from various drug manufacturing facilities in India, involving even the top Indian pharma players. Based on their own quality and safety audits, the US regulator had concluded that drugs produced in those factories are not safe for consumption by the patients in America.

This apprehension has now almost reached its crescendo, when on February 24, 2017, probably for the first time ever, US-FDA publicly voiced its apprehension about the efficacy of medicines being sold and consumed by patients in India. The observation came from the India director of the US-FDA in an annual conference of a large pharma trade association of some of the top domestic pharma companies. While commenting, “I do not think any one of us wants to take such drugs which lack efficacy”, the official reportedly revealed, he occasionally gets samples sent from the US embassy health unit in Delhi, and complaints are usually about the medicines not giving the desired results.

It is noteworthy, as earlier, rubbishing claims levelled by media expressing growing concern among overseas regulators over the quality of Indian made drugs, the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) had reportedly strongly reiterated that there have been no lapse or compromise on quality parameters of the drugs manufactured throughout the country, as the efficacy of the drugs and safety of the patients have always remained the top priority of DCGI.

Yet another news article of August 22, 2016 reported that after a year-long survey involving Government, civil society and pharmacy professionals, and testing nearly 50,000 drug samples across the country during this period, the Ministry of health of India found that medicines produced in India are safe and effective. This study was kicked off in the wake of rising concerns that several medicines made in the country posed risks to patients, the report highlighted.

Should ‘Self-certification’ by industry prevail?

Intriguingly, when questions on drug quality manufactured in India, are regularly being raised by other equally responsible drug authorities, we find ‘self-certification’, in this regard, coming from all those who are expected to resolve this issue beyond an iota of doubt, always prevails.

Apparently, not just the drug regulator and the Union Ministry of Health are in a sustained denial mode, many large pharma companies also seem to be in the same mode. On March 01, 2017, the media reported, “Close on the heels of US FDA India office raising concerns over the quality of medicines marketed in India, pharma leaders came together to defend the quality of their products. There is no question of compromising quality of Indian products meant for domestic market and export, they pointed out.” This rebuttal was expected. Nevertheless, the apprehension lingers: Should such self-certification by pharma players prevail?

That said, one may try to justify this quandary by saying that effectively regulating over 20,000 domestic pharmaceutical companies, including third party and loan license manufacturers, poses a serious challenge to the DCGI and the State Drug Controllers. However, the moot point is, who has been encouraging such over-proliferation of drug manufacturing facilities over a long period of time, in any case? In that sense, whose prime responsibility is it to ensure that drugs consumed by patients in India are efficacious and safe?

The answer to these vexing questions continues to remain unanswered.

Did patients benefit from drug price control orders?

Let me first draw a brief sketch on the global perspective of price increases in generic drugs. It appears that in all those countries where there is no drug price control in place, the entire pharma industry is being adversely impacted by huge generic drug price inflation. This finding has been well captured in a study by Elsevier. It shows, between November 2013 and November 2014, out of its research sample of 4421 generic drug groups, there were price increases in 222 drug groups by 100 percent or more. In 17 drug groups price increases were taken even over 1000 percent, which include even tetracycline. With this trend sharply moving north, many patients, across the world, are struggling hard to find ways to survive in this situation. With this backdrop, I now get back to its India perspective.

I have read some media editorials questioning, just as the pharma industry, whether it is the right approach to make essential medicines affordable through drug price control in India? Nevertheless, there isn’t an iota of doubt in my mind that yes, it is, in the prevailing health care scenario of the country sans universal health care, with out of pocket expenses on medicines being the highest in the world and when market competition doesn’t bring down the price of medicines, for obvious reasons. My questions, on the contrary, will be, is drug price control being enforced in India the way it should? Are the patients getting commensurate benefits out of it? If not, why?

However, on the face of it, the answer to the question above “Did patients benefit from drug price control orders”, may appear to be an affirmative one. This is mainly because, on July 28, 2017, no less than the Union minister for Chemicals and Fertilizers, in a written reply to the Rajya Sabha reportedly conveyed that the Indian consumers have saved nearly Rs 5,000 crore due to the Government fixing the prices of essential medicines under the Drugs Price Control Order (DPCO) 2013.

The ground reality of drug price control:

Let me try to explore a bit in this area with some recent examples.

According to the data from India’s drug pricing watchdog – the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA), compliance to various Drug Price Control Orders (DPCO) is far from satisfactory. Outstanding dues for non-compliance to notified ceiling prices, including penalty, from scores of pharma companies, have now reportedly piled up over the past two decades exceeding Rs. 4,551 crore (around USD 700 million). Thus, the same question haunts: Has drug price control benefitted the patients in India, as was intended to?

The situation is no different, even with DPCO 2013. On February 23, 2017, NPPA notified the ‘Suspected cases of Noncompliance of Ceiling Price by Pharmaceutical Companies,’ of 634 drugs, along with a ‘Public Notice’ for the same. This listed included the products marketed by some leading pharma companies in India, such as, Cipla, Abbott India, Alkem Labs, AstraZeneca, Dr Reddys Lab and Cadila, among many others.

Yet another fresh allegation related to drug pricing has just come to light. Interestingly, it relates to an anti-diabetic drug that falls outside DPCO 2013. On March 01, 2017, a news articled reported, “India’s drug regulator will look into allegations that four leading pharmaceutical companies are colluding to set the price of anti-diabetic drug Vildagliptin, a move that may rattle the almost Rs. 10,000 Crore (around USD 1540 million) market in the country.” Vildagliptin is a proprietary drug of Novartis, which has licensed it to three other companies. All of them sell Vildagliptin in India under their own brand names. Abbott sells it as Zomelis, USV as Jalra and Emcure as Vysov. The combined sales of these brands stood at Rs. 822 Crore (around USD 125 million) last year, the report states.

Be that as it may, the bottom line, as many believe, continues to remain unchanged, as it has always been – the patients don’t derive intended benefits due to lackluster and apparently ineffective enforcement of the drug price control in India.

Another crucial player:

Besides the two important and powerful Government authorities – DCGI and NPPA, there is another very critical player in this game – the Indian drug industry. Without whole-hearted cooperation and result-oriented action by all the three players, in tandem, nothing can possibly change this agonizing status quo, in this area.

The industry too is in a denial mode:

Quite like the other two critical constituents, who always deny any serious allegation on their actions, not being good enough to fetch the intended benefits for the patients, the drug industry too doesn’t seem to be any different. It always appears to be in a pre-programmed denial mode against all such allegations, irrespective of whether these are on drug quality, price, or on frequent misuse of the term innovation. They always try to justify their action, playing the victim card, as it were, and expecting other stakeholders to believe that they are doing right, always.

Let me now explore each of these areas separately, basically from the pharma industry perspective:

Drug quality: Pharma players, just as the Indian drug regulator, do not seem to accept that many drugs in India do not provide desirable benefits to patients, as alleged even by the US-FDA after studying some test results, following complaints from their local establishments. Many of us, at an individual level, may also have experienced just the same, and nurture the same doubt on the efficacy and safety profile of some branded generics that we consume, but have no wherewithal to prove the same. Doctors just change the brands, when any patient comes with such complaints, as Pharmacovigilance has not taken-off in the country with full steam, just yet. Thus, both the government regulators and the industry are in sync with each other, on this issue.

Drug price control: In this specific area, unlike the issue of drug quality, the respective stands of the government and the industry are poles apart. The former believes that it is working well, and the latter says, it isn’t.

The industry, as I see it, wants to project an impression that drug price control is the root cause of all evils, including compromises on drug quality, and some drugs going out of the market. The industry further highlights that drug price control offers a crippling blow to innovation, as they can’t garner enough financial resources through increased drug prices. It is another matter that they can’t possibly claim, drug price control offers a telling blow on their profit, as despite price control pharma is one of the highest profit making industry in India and globally too.

What innovation means to patients:

Interestingly, both the domestic and multinational pharma players often use the term of innovation, mostly construed as a façade, as it were, in their different advocacy initiatives, and during media outreach, as well. For global players, it primarily means innovation of new products, which offers monopolistic marketing and pricing advantage. Whereas, for generic players, it is generally process innovation, and different generic or biosimilar product development.

This is fine, but why should patients pay high drug prices, only because pharma players want to spend more on innovation, either for a new drug or a new process? I reckon, almost none will be willing to pay just for the heck of it.

Commensurate incremental price for incremental value:

Many patients, on the other hand, will be willing to pay more for any commensurate incremental value that a drug or a process will offer for a speedy recovery from illness, or to live a better quality of life, or for a lesser net treatment cost. Thus, the price of any brand is considered by stakeholders as a function of the value that it promises to offer. Consequently, brand marketing is deemed a value delivery system. For medicines, this value must be easily perceptible, quantifiable and scientific research based. Accordingly, the outcome of any such innovation should convince the regulators, doctors, hospitals and ultimately the patients – what value delivery – path breaking or incremental, for which patients need to pay commensurate incremental prices.

Various ways of ensuring it:

There are several different ways of addressing it, even for branded generics in India. For example, when branded generics of the same drug or similar FDCs of different drugs, are marketed by different companies with a huge price difference, the pharma players should necessarily submit before appropriate authorities, prior to marketing approval, all data regarding incremental and quantifiable value offerings, especially for those branded generics falling at the top of the price band. This is necessary, as an increasing number of brands in the market of the same generic molecules or the same FDCs, may not necessarily lead to greater competition with any significant impact on price. I shall argue on this point below.

What happens, generally:

For any drug falling outside price control in India, branded generic drug makers, usually set prices based on whatever each of them considers the market will accept. This consideration is highly elastic in nature, varying from a very low to a very high price, for any specific molecule and its FDCs. As I said before, it has been well-established by now that competition doesn’t play any significant role to bring down the branded generic drug prices, unlike many other consumables in different industries.

Why market competition doesn’t work for medicines?

This is primarily because, the purchasing decision for medicines does not depend on individual patients, unlike many other consumables. This decision is taken by the doctors while writing prescriptions for them. It is widely alleged, all over the world, that many important doctors are heavily influenced by the drug companies, often through dubious and highly cost intensive means, to prescribe their respective brands or branded generics in the process of treatment of a wide variety of medical conditions. In this rat race of generation of more and more prescriptions, pharma companies require to have a deep pocket to achieve their financial goals. Thus, many brands attract high prices to generate more profit and keep moving this vicious circle. Value based brand differentiation for many leading branded generics or even me-too patented products, aren’t mostly robust enough to stand any scientific or peer scrutiny. Consequently, the prescription demand of a most branded generics or me-too patented products do not have any linear relationship with the nature of market completion, and therefore, on their prices. In this perspective, setting a price for a pharma brand doesn’t depend on quantifiable value offerings for patients, as someone said before, “It is not a science. It is a feel.”

In conclusion:

The overall concern spans across several important public health and safety related issues, which also involve general quality standards of medicines, the effectiveness of drug price control, the core intent of so frequent use of the term ‘innovation’ in various pharma advocacy initiatives, including media outreach.

In this scenario, is the pharma industry, together with the drug quality and pricing watchdogs, failing to fathom the grave residual impact of continuity of this situation? In my view, this specific assumption appears too simplistic, naïve, and unrealistic. Or else, could it be that they are actually in a quandary, not being able to decide what would be the most effective actionable blueprint to resolve these issues?

I reckon, this is high time now for all concerned to accept the reality, seriously introspect on these critical issues, opt for a dip-stick expert analysis to assess the real status, and then work out a time-bound action plan with assigned accountability on the ground.

Together they may wish to address the following queries, among several others:

Why are they still running on a treadmill, as it were, over the last four decades, to come nearer these issues for better understanding, without moving an inch on the ground, despite public outcry?
Are they really in a quandary?
Are these concerns not an outcome of basically governance related failures?
Why hypes are being created all around on significant savings over out of pocket expenses on medicines because of ‘good enforcement’ of DPCOs, when it doesn’t seem so?
What prompts all the key players to be in a consistent denial mode on dubious drug quality standards in India, when foreign drug regulators are pointing it out in public?
Isn’t the term ‘innovation’ being rampantly misused, more as a major tool for advocacy to gain free pricing advantage?
Shouldn’t ‘Que Sera, Sera’ days change now?

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

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: innovation

Drug Innovation and Pharma M&As: A Recent Perspective

Indian Pharma: Optimism, Concern and Retaining Trust

High Innovation-Cost Makes Cancer Drugs Dear: A Fragile Argument?

Do Consumers Perceive Pharma Industry Innovative?

Disruptive Digital Innovation To Reduce Medication Need?

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

In a Quandary of Drug Quality, Price Control, Innovation and Patient Interest in India

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