How Cost-Effective Are New Cancer Drugs?

Posted on January 30, 2017 by Tapan Ray

The main reason why cancer is so serious a disease, is the ability of the malignant cells to spread in the body, both locally by moving into nearby normal tissue, and regionally to nearby lymph nodes, tissues, or organs, affecting even the distant parts of the body. When this happens, doctors term it as metastatic or stage IV (four) cancer.

Although most patients with metastatic tumors would eventually die of cancer, the treatment with various types of anticancer drugs, could help prolong life, in varying degree. No wonder, many new anticancer drugs now obtain regulatory approval based on their effectiveness on metastatic cancer patients. Consequently, it has now become almost a routine to administer newer anticancer drugs to patients with early stage of disease, after they have undergone surgery or radiotherapy.

But, these lifesaving drugs are expensive – very expensive! For example, a newer anticancer treatment is often priced at US$ 100,000 or more per patient, which, obviously, a large majority of the population can’t just afford.

Are these new drugs cost-effective?

To put in simple words, cost effectiveness of a drug is generally ‘expressed in terms of a ratio where the denominator is a gain in health from a measure (years of life, premature births averted, sight-years gained) and the numerator is the cost associated with the health gain.’

From this perspective, a January 2015 research study titled, “Pricing In The Market For Anticancer Drugs”, published by the National Bureau Of Economic Research of the United States observed that anticancer drugs like bevacizumab (US$ 50,000 per treatment episode) and ipilimumab (US$120,000 per episode) have fueled the perception that the launch prices of anticancer drugs are fast increasing over time.

To evaluate the pricing trend of these drugs, the researchers used an original dataset of 58 anticancer drugs, approved between 1995 and 2013, and found that launch-prices, adjusted for inflation and drugs’ survival benefits, increased by 10 percent, or about US$ 8,500, per year. This study was restricted to drugs administered with the primary intent of extending survival time for cancer patients and drugs for which survival benefits have been estimated in trials or modeling studies. The researchers did not consider drugs administered to treat pain or drugs that are administered to alleviate the side effects of cancer treatments.

The paper concluded, as compared to the older ones, newer anticancer treatments, generally, are less cost-effective. Despite this fact, the prices of these drugs are rising faster than their overall effectiveness.

How much do these drugs cost to prolong a year of life for cancer patients?

Another paper, titled “Cancer Drugs Aren’t As Cost-Effective As They Used To Be”, published in the Forbes magazine on September 30, 2015, expressed serious concern on the declining cost-effectiveness of new anticancer drugs. The author termed this trend as unacceptable, and more disturbing when providing just a year of life to cancer patients costs around US$ 350,000 to even US$ 800,000. High prices should reflect large benefits, and we need to demand value out of medical interventions – he recommended.

Do the claims of efficacy also reflect the real-world effectiveness?

Providing an answer to this question, a very recent article titled, “Assessment of Overall Survival, Quality of Life, and Safety Benefits Associated With New Cancer Medicines”, published in the well reputed medical journal ‘JAMA Oncology’ on December 29, 2016, concluded as follows:

“Although innovation in the oncology drug market has contributed to improvements in therapy, the magnitude and dimension of clinical benefits vary widely, and there may be reasons to doubt that claims of efficacy reflect real-world effectiveness exactly.”

As stated above, this conclusion was drawn by the researchers after a detail study on the overall survival, quality of life, and safety benefits of recently licensed cancer medicines, as there was a dearth of evidence on the impact of newly licensed cancer medicines.

The authors analyzed in detail health technology assessment reports of 62 cancer drugs approved in the United States and Europe between 2003 and 2013, and found that these were associated with increased overall survival by an average of 3.43 months between 2003 and 2013. Following is a summary of the detail findings:

43 percent increased overall survival by 3 months or longer
11 percent by less than 3 months
30 percent was not associated with any increase in overall survival, which means almost one third of these drugs lacked evidence to suggest their increased survival rate when compared to alternative treatments
Most new cancer drugs, though improved quality of life, were associated with reduced patient safety

The researchers expect this study to support clinical practice, and promote value-based decision-making in the cancer drug treatment, besides assessing their cost-effectiveness.

Some overseas Cancer Institutes protested:

In 2012, doctors at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center reportedly announced through ‘The New York Times’ that their hospital would not be using Zaltrap, a newly patented colorectal cancer drug at that time, from Sanofi. This action of the Sloan-Kettering doctors compelled Sanofi to cut the price of Zaltrap by half.

Unlike India, where prices of even cancer drugs do not seem to be a great issue with the medical profession, just yet, the top cancer specialists of the American Society of Clinical Oncology are reportedly working out a framework for rating and selecting cancer drugs not only for their benefits and side effects, but prices as well.

In a 2015 paper, a group of cancer specialists from Mayo Clinic also articulated, that the oft-repeated arguments of price controls stifle innovation are not good enough to justify unusually high prices of these drugs. Their solution for this problem includes value-based pricing and NICE like body of the United Kingdom.

This Interesting Video from Mayo Clinic justifies the argument.

Was it a tongue-in-cheek action from India?

On March 9, 2012, India did send a signal to global pharma players on its apparent unhappiness of astronomical pricing of patented new cancer drugs in the country. The then Indian Patent Controller General, on that day, issued the first ever Compulsory License (CL) to a domestic drug manufacturer Natco, allowing it to sell a generic equivalent of a kidney cancer treatment drug from Bayer – Nexavar, at a small fraction of the originator’s price.

However, nothing has changed significantly since then on the ground for cancer drugs in the country. Hence, many construe the above action of the Government no more than mere tokenism.

In this context, it won’t be out of place recapitulating an article, published in a global business magazine on December 5, 2013 that quoted Marijn Dekkers, the then CEO of Bayer AG as follows:

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

Whether, CL is the right approach to resolve allegedly ‘profiteering mindset’ at the cost of human lives, is a different subject of discussion.

VBP concept is gaining ground:

The concept of ‘Value-Based Pricing (VBP)’, has started gaining ground in the developed markets of the world, prompting the pharmaceutical companies generate requisite ‘health outcome’ data using similar or equivalent products.

Cost of incremental value that a product delivers over the existing ones, is of key significance, and should always be the order of the day. Some independent organizations such as, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the UK have taken a leading role in this area.

Intriguingly, in India, public health related issues, however pressing these are, still do not seem to arrest much attention of the government to provide significant relief to a large majority of population in the country.

Conclusion:

Warren Buffet – the financial investor of global repute once said, “Price is what you pay. Value is what you get.” Unfortunately, this dictum is not applicable to the consumers of high priced life-saving drugs, such as, for cancer.

Prices of new drugs for the treatment of life-threatening ailments, such as cancer, are increasingly becoming unsustainable, across the world, and more in India. As articulated by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2014, this is mainly because their prices are disconnected from the actual therapeutic value of products.

Currently, a sizable number of poor and even middle-income patients, who spend their entire life’s saving for treatment of a disease like cancer, have been virtually priced out of the patented new cancer drugs market.

The plight of such patients is worse in India, and would continue to be so, especially when no trace of Universal Health Care/Coverage (UHC) is currently visible anywhere near the healthcare horizon of the country.

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.

Awaiting The Two To Tango: Pharma Innovation And Public Health Interest

Posted on January 2, 2017 by Tapan Ray

“The rewards for the breakthrough drug discovery must be substantial, but if prices are the only mechanism through which returns on research flow, affordability will be compromised,” articulated an article titled, ‘Pharmaceutical Policy Reform – Balancing Affordability with Incentives for Innovation’, published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) on February 25, 2016.

The article arrived at this conclusion, on the backdrop of the high prices of prescription drugs becoming an issue of paramount concern, not just in the United States, but across the world. This concern is so acute that it found its way into policy proposals from both the prime candidates, in the American Presidential election held on November 8, 2016.

Through last several decades, healthcare sector in general and particularly the pharmaceutical industry, witnessed many innovations that cure and effectively manage ailments to improve the general quality of life. It enormously impacted the lives of many in the developed countries, and a few others which offer high quality Universal Health Care in a comprehensive format, for all.

A trickle-down impact:

Nevertheless, even no more than its just a trickle-down impact, helped increase overall life expectancy of the population in many developing and poor countries, mostly driven by the expanding number of cheaper generic drugs, fueled by more treatment and disease management options.

The paper titled, ‘World Population Prospects – The 2015 Revision’ of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division of the United Nations’ reported that the life expectancy at birth rose by 3 years between 2000-2005 and 2010-2015, that is from 67 to 70 years. All major areas shared in the life expectancy gains over this period, but the greatest increases were in Africa, where life expectancy rose by 6 years in the 2000s, after rising by only 2 years in the previous decade.

Similarly, the global life expectancy at birth is projected to rise from 70 years in 2010-2015 to 77 years in 2045- 2050 and to 83 years in 2095-2100. Africa is projected to gain about 19 years of life expectancy by the end of the century, reaching 70 years in 2045-2050 and 78 years in 2095-2100. Such increases are contingent on further reductions in the spread of HIV, and combating successfully other infectious as well as non-communicable diseases.

The availability of cheaper generics gave some respite:

Out of a total population of 7.3 billion, as the above report says, the World Bank estimated that in 2013, 767 million people still lived on less than US$ 1.90 a day. Unfortunately, despite the greater availability of a large variety of cheaper generic drugs, the basic health care remains elusive to hundreds of millions of people in the world.

What causes more concern is the fact that 6 percent of people in low and middle-income countries are tipped into or pushed further into extreme poverty because of health spending, as the June 12, 2015 report of the World Health Organization (W.H.O) and the World Bank highlights. W.H.O has estimated that over a billion population of the world still suffer from neglected tropical diseases.

How many people benefitted from pricey patented drugs?

Nevertheless, despite so much innovation in the pharma industry, access to these new drugs remains elusive to a large section of even some the most developed nations, such as the United States, as they can’t afford these high-priced drugs. The overall situation, in this regard, is going from bad to worse. For example, the March 16, 2015 study published in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings reveals that the average annual cost of cancer drugs increased from roughly US$ 10,000 prior to 2000 to an astounding over US$ 100,000 by 2012.

Further, an August 31, 2015 article published in the ‘Health Affairs’ also gave examples of Biogen Idec’s multiple sclerosis drug, Tecfidera, which costs US$ 54,900 per patient per year; hepatitis C cures from Gilead Sciences, with a sticker price of $84,000 per patient; and Orkambi, a cystic fibrosis drug from Vertex Pharmaceuticals approved this month, priced at a whopping US$ 259,000 per year. A Kaiser Health Tracking Poll last July 2015 found that 73 percent of Americans find the cost of drugs to be unreasonable, and most blamed drug manufacturers for setting prices too high, the article stated.

The health care scenario in India is no better:

A study conducted by the ‘National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO)’ from January to June 2014, which was the 71st round of the ‘National Sample Survey’, and published in the ‘Health in India’ report, narrates a very gloomy picture for India, especially for a clear majority of those who incur ‘out of pocket’ expenses on medicines. The report states, out of all health expenditure, 72 percent in rural and 68 percent in urban areas was for buying medicines for non-hospitalized treatment.

Thus, many patients cannot afford health services, even when these are needed the most. As many as 68 percent of patients in urban India and 57 percent in rural areas attributed “financial constraints” as the main reason to take treatment without any medical advice, the report adds.

In this situation, the challenges that the Governments and the civil society are facing in many developing, and to some extent even in some developed countries, though for different reasons, are multi-factorial. It has been well established that the humongous global health care challenges are mostly of economic origin.

Pharma innovation benefitted the developed countries more:

A study titled, ‘Pharmaceutical innovation and the burden of disease in developing and developed countries’ of Columbia University and National Bureau of Economic Research, to ascertain the relationship across diseases between pharmaceutical innovation and the burden of disease both in the developed and developing countries, reported that pharmaceutical innovation is positively related to the burden of disease in the developed countries but not so in the developing countries.

Making the two to tango:

These facts prompt the need to make the pharma innovation and public health interest to tango. Several suggestions have been made and initiatives taken in this direction. Some of which are as follows:

Responding to this need, in 2006 W.H.O created the ‘Intergovernmental Working Group on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property (IGWG)’. The primary focus of IGWG is on promoting sustainable, needs-driven pharmaceutical R&D for the diseases that disproportionately affect developing countries. One positive effect of this global debate is that some global pharmaceutical companies have initiated their R&D activities for neglected tropical diseases, such as, Malaria and Tuberculosis. Many charitable organizations like, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Clinton Foundation, are allocating significant funds for this purpose.

A paper titled, “Optional reward for new drugs for developing countries” published by the Department of Economics, University of Calgary, Institute of Health Economics, proposed an optional reward fund for pharmaceutical innovation aimed at the developing world to the pharmaceutical companies, which would develop new drugs while ensuring their adequate access to the poor. The paper suggests that innovations with very high market value will use the existing patent system, as usual. However, the medicines with high therapeutic value but low market potential would be encouraged to opt for the optional reward system. It was proposed that the optional reward fund should be created by the governments of the developed countries and charitable institutions to ensure a novel way for access to innovative medicines by the poor.

‘Open Innovation’ or the ‘Open Source Drug Discovery (OSDD)’ is another model of discovering a New Chemical Entity (NCE) or a New Molecular Entity (NME). Imbibing ‘Open Innovation’ for commercial results in pharmaceuticals, just has what has happened to android smartphones, would encourage drug discovery initiatives, especially for the dreaded disease like cancer, to make these drugs affordable for a very large section of people across the globe. In this model, all data generated related to the discovery research will be available in the open for collaborative inputs. In ‘Open Innovation’, the key component is the supportive pathway of its information network, which is driven by three key parameters of open development, open access and open source. This concept was successfully used in the ‘Human Genome Project’ where many scientists, and microbiologists participated from across the world to sequence and understand the human genes. Currently, pharmaceutical R&D is a well-protected in-house initiative of innovator global companies to maximize commercial benefits. For this reason, only a limited number of scientists working for the respective innovator companies will have access to these projects. In India, the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) is the champion of the OSDD movement, locally. CSIR believes that for a developing country like India, OSDD will help the common man to meet his or her unmet medical needs in the areas of mainly neglected tropical diseases.

Conclusion:

Thus, the ongoing heated debate on Innovation, Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and Public Health Interest is gathering steam all over the globe.

Argumentative Indians are also participating in this raging debate. I reckon rightly so, as India is not only the largest democracy of the world contributing 16.7 percent of the global population, it is also afflicted with 21 percent of the global burden of disease. Considering this, the reason for similar heated debate in our country is indeed no-brainer to anyone.

Many would possibly not disagree, both encouraging innovation and safeguarding the public health interest are equally important to any society, be it in the developed nations or developing countries. Nevertheless, some constituents of ‘Big Pharma’ and their trade association still highlight that ensuring access to high price innovative drugs is the responsibility of the respective Governments. Any other regulatory mechanism to bring down such prices will be construed as a barrier to encouraging, protecting and rewarding innovation.

Be that as it may, most other stakeholders, across the world, especially the patients, are awaiting these two goals to tango. From that point, I reckon, giving a quick shape to commercially well-tested initiatives, such as, ‘Open Innovation’ model could well be an important step to ensure access to innovative new medicines for a larger number of patients of the world, meeting their unmet medical needs with greater care.

By: Tapan J Ray

Relevance of Artificial Intelligence In Creative Pharma Marketing

Posted on October 31, 2016 by Tapan Ray

Keeping pace with the challenge of change globally, the macro environment in the pharma business is also undergoing a metamorphosis. This includes areas, such as, strong product pricing pressure, dwindling new product pipelines, increasing operating expenses, stringent regulatory requirements, rising stakeholder expectations, and several others. All these developments collectively, are making the drug companies, both global and local, feel the tailwind of various intensities, in their efforts to achieve the corporate financial goals, more than ever before.

Despite this continuous change, most pharma players’ overall strategic business models to meet with the increasing economic expectations of the shareholders, other investors and the stock markets, have hardly undergone any path breaking, radical, or disruptive advancement, just yet. This includes even the most critical interface between an organization and the consumers – pharma sales and marketing.

That said, it is not uncommon, either, to witness some sporadic initiatives of major business process reengineering with sophisticated digital applications. Interestingly, all these measures are mostly replacements or for realignment of the same age old, and traditional strategic pharma sales and marketing models. Most of these are aimed at adding more speed and accuracy to the same business core process, along with ensuring greater management information and control to support the decision making process.

Despite this palpable environmental shift, general inertia within the pharma industry to respond to all these, with commensurate strategic game plans of surgical accuracy, is glaring. Currently, the general response to this transformation is mostly reactive and traditionally defensive in nature, rather than proactive, as the overall business environment around the industry keep becoming increasingly demanding. Most pharma players may not, but the time keeps galloping ahead, offering a mind boggling rapid advances in disruptive technological innovations – the potential game changers for its several business domains.

In the midst of such all-embracing changes, yet another disruptive technology – ‘Artificial Intelligence (AI)’, is prompting many business leaders to step on to a brand new paradigm, making use of AI to the extent required, especially, while preparing a detail strategic roadmap for the business with high precision.

A clear intent to seize this moment is now visible in many industries, though in varying degrees and scale, but surely it is happening. This is vindicated by the gradual increase in demand for AI, across a wide variety of its application areas.

Marketing to turn upside down?

On October 26, 2016 an article published in ‘The Huffington Post’ on how AI could ‘Turn the Marketing World Upside Down’ indicated its disruptive impact on the way innovative marketing strategies are conceived, created and implemented on the ground.

The article gave an interesting example of how paradigm shift follows a predictable pattern of development that starts with substitution, followed by augmentation, modification, and finally redefinition.

For example, the evolution of today’s smartphones also followed the same pattern, as follows:

First replaced simpler landline phones
Then adapted with the addition of a camera
And finally redefined “phone” altogether, not just by replacing cameras, pagers, and many functions of personal computers, but by being able to perform with great precision an incredible number of various other serious requirements, well supported by related digital apps.

With the application of AI in marketing, the conventional ball game right from conception, to charting out and execution of marketing strategies, will be catapulted to a new and fascinating orbit altogether. I have no intent to romanticizing it. This is going to happen sooner than later, as we move on.

Artificial Intelligence (AI):

In a simple and commonly understandable way ‘Artificial Intelligence (AI)’ can be explained as the theory and development of computer systems, which are able to perform tasks normally requiring human intelligence, such as, machine learning, visual perception, image processing, speech recognition, decision-making, and language processing, besides many others.

In the Hollywood film industry, several sci-fi movies have already been made, based on AI as the core theme. Some of these international blockbuster films are ‘The Terminator’, ‘Transcendence’, ‘The Matrix’, ‘Ex Machina’, ‘Ex Machina’ or even ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’, among many others.

Some concern, but…:

Alongside, a serious concern has also been expressed by some global icons, that the evolution of AI could reach a dangerous threshold, where mankind will no longer remain in control of the creation of its own progeny, besides other living beings. This could, as they believe, jeopardize the continuity of an entire civilization, at least, in its present form.

In 2014, globally acclaimed Professor Stephen Hawking commented in an interview with the BBC: “Humans, limited by slow biological evolution, couldn’t compete and would be superseded by A.I.”

In fact, in July 2015, Professor Hawking reportedly joined Elon Musk, Steve Wozniak, and many others, warning that AI can potentially be more dangerous than nuclear weapons.

In the same year, even Bill Gates, co-founder of Microsoft, reportedly expressed his concerns, saying, “I am in the camp that is concerned about super intelligence…”

On the other hand, despite such apprehensions, AI based technology keeps evolving at a rapid pace, with the funding in AI research taking giant leaps forward. The technology has already found its cutting edge extensive applications in several warfare. We now hear almost every day about unmanned drones not just doing defense surveillance, but destroying strategic targets with jaw-dropping precision. Or for that matter, use of robots has become rather common to diffusive explosive devices of various kinds, intensity, and planted in important places to kill people. As reported by the media, ‘autonomous and self-aware robots to diminish the need for human soldiers to risk their lives.’

Google’s driverless cars also use similar AI technology offering advanced analytics-based algorithms, machine learning and deep learning processes, which could well be another game changing example in this area.

The benefits far outweigh the risks?

Be that as it may, the benefits of AI seem to far outweigh the risks, in various areas. This includes its strategic applications in the pharma industry.

This gets vindicated by the February 2016 research report of ‘Markets and Markets’ (claimed as the world’s second largest firm in publishing premium market research reports, per year), which estimated that AI market would record a turnover of around US$ 5.05 Billion by 2020, growing at a CAGR of 53.65 percent between 2015 and 2020. This market is currently dominated by the ‘Machine Learning’ technology, as it provides the computers with the ability to learn without being explicitly programmed, and are capable of updating themselves when exposed to new data.

Some of the key players operating in the artificial intelligence market are IBM Corp. (U.S.), Microsoft Corp. (U.S.), Google Inc. (U.S.), IPsoft (U.S.), FinGenius Corp. (U.K.), Rocket Fuel Inc. (U.S.), Mobileye N.V. (Israel), Kensho Technologies, Inc. (U.S.), Sentient Technologies (U.S.), and Zephyr Health (U.S.), the report revealed.

AI in pharma:

Over the last decade, AI is being increasingly used by various industries, as a key support to the strategic decision making process, in various areas of business. Understandably, in pharma its use has been rather limited, as on date. Nevertheless, there are several key domains within the pharma industry, where effective use of AI has the potential to be a critical performance enhancer. These areas include, not just in discovery research, or in clinical trials, or in sales and marketing, but also in setting the right strategic direction for the company.

However, in this article, I shall focus mainly on the application of AI in pharma marketing.

AI in pharma marketing:

Although AI is now being sparsely used, it is expected to be more widely used in pharma research and development. It also shows tremendous potential in developing creative sales and marketing strategies, with great accuracy.

So far, pharma marketing strategies are based more on the qualitative data, some traditional quantitative data, and a huge dose of marketers ‘gut feel’. It continues to happen, when the world, including India, is moving towards innovative data driven decision models. If one chooses to, now a pharma marketer also can make effective use of an abundantly available wide variety of quality data to feel the pulse of the markets, consumers and any identified issues, with great precision. Thereafter, based on these real life hard facts, the team needs to put in place for implementation, with an open and innovative mind, a creative sales and marketing game plan, to achieve the set goals.

Would that mean, a pharma marketer should necessarily be an expert in a huge volume of data analysis? I don’t guess so. ‘Machine Learning’, ‘Deep Learning’ and other analytics-based processes of AI can help them enormously to do so.

AI based analytics has now been proved to be far more reliable than any human analysis of the humongous volume of different kinds of quality data. Doing so is even beyond the capacity of any conventional computers that a marketing professional generally uses for this purpose.

The prime requirement for this purpose, therefore, is not just huge volume of data per se, but good quality of a decent volume of data, that a state of the art analytics would be able to meaningfully deliver, that is tailor made to meet the specific requirements of pharma marketers to create a cutting edge marketing strategy.

Areas of AI use in pharma – some examples:

AI will be extremely useful to arrive at the most effective strategic options available, with pros and cons, to achieve the core sales and marketing objectives of the organization, both long and short term.

It can also add immense value right at the decision making stages to determine the key ingredients of an effective strategic plan in a number of critical areas, such as:

Arriving at the optimal product-portfolio-mix with the right expense tag attached to each brand
Deep learning about market dynamics, customer behavior and their interplay
Matching unmet customer needs with enhanced and differentiated value offerings – both tangible and intangible
Effective bundling of brand offerings and associated services for each patient segment
Selecting the right mix of communication channels, including social media, to ensure maximum productivity in reaching each category of the target audience
Detailed strategic blueprint for each type of stakeholder engagement, along with related value offerings
Arriving at the best possible resource-mix with the available budget
Real-time monitoring of each strategic action steps, consistently, making quick changes on the run, if and when required

Pharma AI platforms are already available:

There are a number of AI platforms now available for the pharmaceutical companies, across the world. For example, in September 2015, by a Press Release, Eularis – a leading provider of next-generation advanced marketing analytics to the Pharma industry, announced the release of the E-VAI, the latest development in sophisticated machine learning technology delivering next-generation analytics and decision making for Pharma marketers globally.

Another recent example of AI in this area, as well, is ‘Salesforce Einstein’. It delivers advanced AI capabilities in sales, service, and marketing, and enables anyone to build AI-powered apps that get smarter with every interaction. According to Salesforce, it will enable everyone in every role and industry to use AI to be their best.

Conclusion:

The use of AI in pharma is still in its nascent stage today. However, for a sustainable business excellence in its various domains, AI is increasingly proving to be of great relevance, now and also in the future. Sales and marketing is one such domains.

With the passage of time, both the macro and micro pharma business operating environments are changing fast, primarily driven by changing expectations of stakeholders, the public at large, and disruptive algorithmic technical innovations, based on advanced science, statistics and mathematics.

The scope to effectively utilize the full potential of advanced algorithmic technical tools, is huge. It is easier now to capture a massive volume of pharma related high quality raw data of different kinds, for tailor-made innovative analysis, with the help of AI based analytics, while creating cutting-edge strategic game plans.

Nonetheless, pharma players apparently continue to chart the same strategic frontier where there are many footsteps to follow. Many of them have restricted themselves to no more than digitally re-engineering the same overall business processes that they have been already following, since long. Just a few of them are making use of the leading edge analytics involving AI, such as ‘Machine Learning’, ‘Deep Learning’, ‘Visual Perception’, ‘Image Processing, besides many others, which can be more ‘patient-centric’ and at the same help deliver a strong business performance.

Thus, quicker adaptation, and thereafter continuous scaling up applications of high quality AI based analytics in creative pharma marketing, are not just of immense relevance today, they also bring with them the commensurate potential for sustainable excellence in financial performance of the organization, fueled by critical early mover advantage.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Déjà Vu In Pharma Industry

Posted on September 12, 2016 by Tapan Ray

It’s happening in the West, and is equally widespread in the Eastern part of the globe too, though in different ways and forms, as both the national and international media have been reporting, consistently. The phenomenon is all pervasive, and directed towards stalling almost all possible future laws and policies that a large section of the pharma industry sees as a potential apocalypse for their business models.

It has a wide reach and covers, for example, the policy-decision makers or possible policy-decision makers in the near future, other policy influencers, many hospitals, and the final interface with the patients – the prescription decision makers.

Although, it affects health care as a whole, in this article I shall focus just on the pharma industry.

Looking West:

While looking at the West, I would cite a recent example from the United States. It’s yet another déjà vu for the western pharma industry.

On August 26, 2016, ‘The Los Angeles Times’ in an article titled, “Drug companies spend millions to keep charging high prices” stated, “Of roughly US$ 250 million raised for and against 17 ballot measures coming before California voters in November, more than a quarter of that amount – about US$ 70 million – has been contributed by deep-pocketed drug companies to defeat the state’s Drug Price Relief Act.”

The Drug Price Relief Act of California, is aimed at making prescription drugs more affordable for people in Medi-Cal and other state programs by requiring that California pays no more than what’s paid for the same drugs by the Department of Veterans Affairs of the United States. It would, in other words, protect state taxpayers from being ripped off.

The report also quoted Michael Weinstein, President of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation saying that industry donations to crush the Drug Price Relief Act “will top US$ 100 million by the election, I’m quite certain of it.” He further added, “They see this as the apocalypse for their business model.”

Looking East:

While citing a related example from the eastern part of the globe, I shall draw one from nearer home – India, as China has already been much discussed on this matter. This particular media report on a wide-spread pharma industry practice, though took place in a different form, as compared to the United States, belongs to the same genre, and captures yet another déjà vu involving the pharma players operating in the eastern world, similar to what’s happening in the west.

India:

On August 30, 2016 a report published in ‘The Economic Times’ titled, “Pharma cos offer freebies to doctors, violate code: MP” quoted a serious allegation of a Rajya Sabha Member of the Parliament on this issue. The MP claims, he has evidence of four drug companies’ recently bribing doctors across India to push their products. These four companies include both large Indian and multinational pharma players, and two out of these four features, among the top five companies of the Indian Pharma Market (IPM).

The lawmaker further said, “I am waiting for the minister’s response on this issue. Nothing has come so far. We also have the names of the doctors who have taken bribes, which we will release eventually,”

Another September 06, 2016 report, published by the same business daily in India, categorically mentioned that TOI has documents to establish that one of these companies took hundreds of doctors from across India to places like Vancouver, Amsterdam, Oslo, Venice, New York, Boston, Brussels and Moscow. The documents reportedly include email exchanges between the company executives, city-wise lists of doctors with ‘legacy codes’, names of spouses, passport copies and visa copies, and show how the company has spent several millions of rupees in taking doctors and sometimes even their spouses, ostensibly to attend medical conferences.

Other NGOs have also reportedly submitted proof of the same to the Government for remedial measures in India, against such gross ongoing unethical practices in pharma marketing.

It is worth mentioning here that all these expenses are part of the marketing budget of a company and the sum total of which is built into the ‘retail price to the patients’ of the respective drugs, even in India.

Two broad processes for the same goal:

Thus it emerges, very broadly, there are two key processes followed by many in the pharma industry to achieve the same goal of increasing profit. These are as follows:

Marketing malpractices in various forms to influence prescription decision
Arbitrary increase of drug prices, for both branded and generic medicines

The justification:

Many global pharma majors still keep justifying, though the number of its believers is fast dwindling, that the high new drug prices have a linear relationship with the cost of new drug innovation. Even for argument’s sake one nods in favor, the critical question that needs to be answered is, if this is the basic or primary axle on which the wheel of innovation moves, won’t affordability and access to drugs for a significant number of the population be seriously compromised?

If not, why is this furor, across the world, is fast assuming a snowballing effect? Why are even the generic drug prices going up steeply even in the United States, where some of the largest Indian drug manufacturers are being questioned for the same by the competent authorities of the country?

I deliberated on a similar subject in my article titled, “The Next Frontier: Frugal Innovation For High-Tech Drugs”, published in this Blog on May 20, 2016.

Marketing malpractices:

Laws are fast catching up to book the offenders resorting to pharma marketing malpractices in most of the countries of the world, including China. This is vindicated by the fact that global pharma players are now paying billions of dollars a fine, in various countries, especially in the West.

Just as no criminal law can totally eliminate any crime, anywhere in the world, despite a heavy dent in pharma’s reputation related to this area, many companies still continue to indulge in such malpractices, blatantly, and even with some brazenness.

India:

Unfortunately, in India, the inertia to catch the bull by the horn and lack of governance in this regard continues, making patients pay a heavy price. As the above media report indicates, both MNCs and the local players indulge into this deplorable activity almost without any inhibition. As many industry watchers believe, some companies have started hiring these services through professional third parties just to create a facade for taking the high moral ground, as and when required, both with the government and also other stakeholders.

Initiating a step in this direction, on December 12, 2014, the DoP announced details of the ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’, which became effective across the country from January 1, 2015. The communique also said that the code would be voluntarily adopted and complied with by the pharma industry in India for a period of six months from the effective date, and its compliance would be reviewed thereafter on the basis of the inputs received.

UCPMP, though not a panacea, was aimed at containing pharma marketing malpractices in India. However, as happened with any other voluntary pharma marketing code, be it of a global drug major or their trade associations, similar non-compliances were detected even by the DoP with voluntary UCPMP. This gross disregard to the code, apparently prompted the DoP contemplating to make the UCPMP mandatory, with legal implications for non-compliance, which could possibly lead to revocation of marketing licenses.

In this context, it is worth recapitulating that the Union Minister of Chemicals and Fertilizer – Mr. Ananth Kumar, in his reply in the Indian Parliament, to a ‘Lok Sabha Starred Question No: 238’ on the UCPMP based on the inputs received, also had admitted:

“The Government had announced Uniform Code for Pharmaceutical Practices (UCPMP) which was to be adopted voluntarily w.e.f. 1st January, 2015 for a period of six months and has last been extended up to 30.06.2016. After reviewing the same it was found that the voluntary code was not working as expected. The Government consulted the stakeholders, including NGO’s / Civil Society members and after examining their suggestions it is now looking into the viability of making the Code Statutory.”

This seems to be yet another assurance, and expression of a good intent by the Union Minister. The fact today is, after extending the UCPMP in its original form up to June 30, 2016 with four extensions and despite the Government’s public admission that it is not working, by a circular dated August 30, 2016, the Government has informed all concerned, yet again, that voluntary UCPMP has now been extended ‘till further orders’.

This not only creates public apprehension on the DoP’s true intent on the subject, but also gives enough room for speculation regarding behind the scene power play by the vested interests to keep a mandatory UCPMP, having sufficient legal teeth, away, as long as possible. Are these forces then also visualizing its enforcement as an apocalypse for their business models in India too?

Thus, the possibility of containing pharma marketing malpractices in India is still charting in the realm of the decision makers’ assurances and no further.

Arbitrary drug price increases:

Arbitrary price increases of important drugs are drawing increasing public ire in the West, the latest being a 400 percent price increase of generic EpiPen of Mylan. This is now being considered yet another business malpractice in the pharma industry, as whole.

No robust regulatory or legal measure is now being followed in the West to contain the drug over pricing public health menace. Thus, it is increasingly assuming a critical political significance today to win over the voters, especially in the forthcoming Presidential election of the United States.

Thus, as reported by Reuters, on September 02, 2016, Hillary Clinton announced that, if elected, she would create an oversight panel to protect the consumers of the United States from large price hikes on longer-available, life-saving drugs and to import alternative treatments if necessary, adding to her pledges to rein in overall drug prices.

She would give the ‘Oversight Panel’ an aggressive new set of enforcement tools, including the ability to levy fines and impose penalties on manufacturers when there has been an unjustified, outlier price increase on a long-available or generic drug.

On September 08, 2016, reacting to these proposed measures articulated by Hilary Clinton, the global CEO of the world’s largest pharma player reportedly commented, as expected, that it “will be very negative for innovation.”

Nonetheless, the bottom-line is, even in the United Sates, a transparent mechanism to deal with arbitrary price increases of the existing important medicines, still charts in the realm of several assurances of the probable decision makers, just as it is India to effectively deal with pharma marketing malpractices.

A global CEO’s lone voice stands out:

In this context, I would start with yet another example of astronomical price increase of a widely used anti-diabetic product, besides EpiPen of Mylan. According to Dr. Mayer Davidson, Professor of Medicine at the Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science in Los Angeles, who has carefully tracked the rapid and repeated increases, from 2011 to 2013 the wholesale price of insulin went up by as much as 62 percent in the United States. Whereas, from 2013 to 2015 the price jumped again, from a low of 33 percent to as much as 107 percent.

In the midst of this scary situation, a solitary and apparently a saner voice from the global pharma industry stands out. According to an article published in the Forbes Magazine on September 06, 2016, Brent Saunders, CEO of Allergan, ‘explicitly renounced egregious price increases.’ Saunders also said that the industry needs to ‘end its addiction to price hikes far in excess of inflation, often taken several times in a single year.’ While outlining his company’s “social contract with patients,” Saunders vowed that Allergan would:

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

Though this seems to be a lone voice in the pharma industry, it makes the CEO stand much taller than his peers.

India:

On this score, India has already put in place the ‘National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority’ to regulate the drug prices of primarily those falling under the ‘National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM)’. However, it is a different matter that as per its own public admission, NPPA is still unable to strictly enforce these price controls, with significant incidences of non-compliance. Therefore, the net benefits to the patients in India for having this mechanism, is indeed arguable.

The core issue:

All that we witness in this area are mostly assurances, promises and good intent on the part of various Governments of different political dispensation, over the last several decades. The same indifference to public health care, in general, continues. Nothing seems to be working effectively in the public health care space of the country, even today. A large section of patients, bearing the tough burden of the highest out of pocket health expenditure in India, are under significant consequential stress of all kinds.

An important part of this scenario is well-captured in the statement of the erstwhile Secretary of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) – V K Subburaj at an event in New-Delhi on April 19, 2016, when he said, “In the entire world, I think our drug control system probably is the weakest today. It needs to be strengthened.”

Is it a legacy? Possibly yes. But, who will fix it, and what steps are we taking now for its satisfactory resolution?

The core issue in the pharmaceutical arena is, therefore, about striking an optimal balance between drug profitability and patient affordability, to avoid any adverse impact on access to drugs for a large majority of population in the world.

Conclusion:

Thus, it appears to me, if those who now decide for the people’s health interest, also refuse to wake up from deep slumber and remain as indifferent as before, soon we may hear or read or experience yet another or more of similar deplorable developments, having serious adverse repercussions on the patients.

Interestingly, despite such incidents, pharma stocks remain generally unaffected and buoyant. Its overall trend continues heading north, factoring-in that no implementable Government action is forthcoming, for obvious reasons. Consequently, pharma business remains as robust as ever, but the patients continue to suffer increasingly more.

Pharma industry in general, has been seriously attempting to wash its hands off for this scary emerging situation, since long. It blames the governments for trying to throttle the money spinning business with ‘unnecessary’ regulations, as discussed above, for something that is only the state responsibility, as they perceive. The governments, in turn, blame the industry and try to regulate it more strictly. Invariably, the patients in need of right and affordable medical care get caught in this cross-fire – some succeed to overcome the health crisis, but mostly exposing themselves to huge financial uncertainty in the future, many others can’t.

When the business continues to flourish with current business ‘practices’, why would the pharma players bother about rapidly tarnishing industry reputation, and public outcry? Does it really matter at all on the ground, for running a money spinning business machine, especially when there exists a fair chance of stalling the new laws and policies, with deep pockets, as alleged by many?

In this scenario, what else a common man would do while falling seriously ill, except praying to the almighty for divine care and blessings for a speedy recovery, along with possibly lamenting, it’s déjà vu in the pharma industry?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Recomposing Notes of Pharma Marketing Playbook

Posted on June 20, 2016 by Tapan Ray

The global management guru Peter Drucker, in one of his management classics – “The Practice of Management”, published in 1954, that created the discipline of modern management practices, had underscored the following:

“As the core purpose of any business is to create a customer, a business has two, and only two functions, marketing and innovation. Only these two produce business results. All the rest are costs.”

The Harvard Business Review also had rated ‘The Practice of Management’ as Drucker’s best book on the managerial profession. Far more crisp than the larger compendium on Management, nicely balanced between precept and example, this book is eminently practical yet of genuine intellectual breadth. If Drucker’s work holds anything of immediate value for you, you will most likely find it here…”

Thus, Peter Drucker’s above concept is so fundamental that the pharmaceutical business can’t be any exception to it, in any way. That the old customers need to be retained, and the new customers are to be created on an ongoing basis, even in the modern times, still remain a basic requirement.

Nevertheless, the marketing process of doing so needs to change, according to the changing market dynamics. Continuation of playing the same notes from the grand old marketing playbook, with minor alterations here or there, would no longer suffice to keep pace with the changing market, and to effectively address the new stakeholders’ needs and wants.

Need to recompose notes of the playbook:

Both the current processes of pharma marketing and the patent claim for any type of drug innovation that the majority of the global pharma companies is currently following, have become highly contentious over a period of time, to say the least.

Even otherwise, in my view, both these processes have already hit the ceiling of the famous ‘law of diminishing returns’, where very simply put, the level of profits or benefits gained is less than the amount of money or energy invested.

Therefore, the question that comes up: Are the notes of the pharma marketing and innovation playbook fair, right, inclusive, and sustainable? However, in this article, I shall focus only on contemporary pharma marketing, and the opportunities that are coming up along with waves of changes in the business environment.

An example of ‘Change the logo’ saga:

Going by my personal experience, I have worked with many pharma marketing professionals, some of whom are still working in the industry. Post recruitment in the new company, having gone through a rigorous screening process, most of them would probably give a similar feedback that an anonymous quote captures as follows:

“The optimist says, ‘the glass is half full’; The pessimist says, ‘The glass is half empty.’ The marketing consultant says, ‘The glass needs resizing and a different logo.”

On a lighter vein, I am using below an example of one ‘change the logo’ approach. This is just one of many of my real life experiences. This may give you a panoramic view of how things generally are. The stretching of the same old marketing paradigm beyond its elastic limit is rather common, of course, with some sporadic digital tweaking. Nonetheless, the notes in the marketing playbook remain almost the same, producing the same tunes for some, and noise for many others.

This ‘logo change’ saga may sound quite familiar to many of my ex-colleagues of not so distant past. This approach exemplifies the limitations of a new recruit for a senior position to identify the core issues that would lead to the organization’s performance improvement.

It does not surprise me at all, when I find some top managements, who were an integral part of that selection process, promptly buying these shallow, and at the most peripheral ideas. It is quite evident that some of these top management members also suffer from similar analytical and management myopia. It is needless to mention that such things usually happen during the ‘honeymoon’ period’ of the new recruits.

Accordingly, the ‘logo change’ takes place in no time, paying a huge sum to the creative agency. Commensurate hype is simultaneously created around the new logo, backed by massive efforts to communicate its ‘ethereal design’ to as many targets as possible, often with no tangible outcome. Alongside, attempts are also made to change as many old things as possible, generating a multitude of seemingly high-voltage activities, though the performance on the ground remains unchanged, or rather deteriorates.

I fully understand, there is nothing wrong in changing anything, including a logo, that is not working or has outlived its time. However, when this assumes the top priority of a new and a top recruit, immediately after assuming office with a new responsibility, it somewhat doesn’t gel, and very often does not achieve the desired purpose.

Pharma marketing over-dependent on the likes of ‘Surrogate CMEs’?

Today, when there is a need to hear more from all the major stakeholders, one sided ‘telling my story’ mostly to the doctors continues to occupy a major part of pharma marketing, besides company sponsored or allegedly surrogate ‘Continuing Medical Education (CME)’ even for old branded generics.

The preparation of a canned brand communication in India is a routine pharma marketing process, with a plethora of avoidable and unproductive activities. This canned message is delivered to the doctors, usually through the Medical Representatives, conforming to a structured ‘tool-kit’, and heavily backed by free samples and gifts.

A large number of doctors too, continue to take this process, particularly in India, as an unavoidable routine, and also an integral part of their professional activities. It is widely believed, and frequently reported that the ‘magic wand’ for large scale prescription generation for pharma brands lies somewhere else.

Apparently, it is where the financial relationship between the doctors’ and pharma players is usually built and strengthened. One allegation is, in the garb of so called ‘CMEs’, even for old branded generic or as some folks call these as ‘classic’ brands, this financial relationship continues to thrive.

This gives rise to a suspicion in many, as to why pharma marketing is so over-dependent on the so called ‘CMEs’, even for old branded generics in India.

The vicious circle continues:

When the financial relationship of various hues, between the drug players and the doctors take the center stage, which pharma company has a deeper pocket counts. More expenses incurred in such relationship building process, may consequently drive the drug prices higher. In this situation, the patients get literally caught between the devil and the deep blue sea, where the Governments are compelled to intervene, as has started happening now in many countries.

In tandem, the pressure on performance keeps mounting on the marketers from the same top management, ultimately repeating the old vicious circle, where it may not be the ‘logo change’ that time, but another different sets of the same genre of hectic activities would commence, in pursuit of the illusive sweet smell of business success.

Recompose notes of the marketing playbook:

Even today, the marketing communication in the pharma industry remains primarily a monologue. Many training programs are currently sold to the industry to make this process a dialogue, as the Medical Representatives detail their products to the doctors.

However, on the ground, as I witnessed even in the last month while seating incognito in the clinics of some doctor friends, that the practice of monologue continues reflecting a great visible hurry in the product communicators’ end. Some from large pharma companies were using electronic gadgets, instead of a usual spirally bound product detailing folder, but their overall communication approaches were monologue too.

Thus, the modern age pharma marketers need to recompose the notes of their marketing playbook, soon. Some of the areas of active consideration may include the following:

A. Brand messages to be “pulled” by doctors, not “pushed” by marketers:

An interesting worldwide survey of 228 senior global marketing executives was conducted in February 2006 by the Economist Intelligence Unit, in co-operation with Google. The study highlights the need to transform the marketing communication platforms from a monologue to a more intense process of engagement, through effective dialogue with the stakeholders.

In this new environment, the relevance is more important than repetition, and marketing messages should be “pulled” by the consumer rather than “pushed” by the marketer. This calls for a transformation of the internal marketing organization. All the deliverables of pharma marketers’ must have a relevance to time, and measurable, with total accountability for top and bottom line growth in the areas of responsibility.

In the consumer products’ industry, the last decade has witnessed several innovative two-way marketing “conversations” between the customers and some of the world’s leading consumer brands. Driven by a confluence of innovation, competition and big shifts in consumer behavior, the dialogue between brands and their customers is replacing the traditional marketing monologue, the study observes.

Some recent developments:

In this regard, on Jun 2016, an IBM News Release announced that ‘The Weather Company’, an IBM Business has developed an industry-first capability in which consumers will be able to interact with IBM Watson through advertising, by being able to ask questions via voice or text and receive relevant information about the product or offering. It can create a one-to-one connection with the consumer, that can be personal, relevant and valuable; and can scale across millions of interactions and touch points. This digital tool can also help the marketers uncover consumer and product insights faster than ever before, revealing connections previously invisible to human data scientists, IBM claims.

For example, an anti-allergy brand could enable visitors to Weather.com to ask questions about whether the product is appropriate for children or what sort of side effects it might cause, as WSJ mentioned in its news item of the same date.

However, only the FMCG companies, such as, Unilever, Campbell Soup Co. and GSK Healthcare have, so far, reportedly signed on with Weather Co. to start running Watson-powered ads on both desktop and mobile devices this year.

According to another 2014 report of IMS Health on Social Media, among the top 50 pharmaceutical companies, more than half do not engage with consumers or patients through social media on healthcare-related topics. The top 3 pharma companies in this regard are: Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithkline (GSK), and Novo Nordisk.

Thus, in the pharma industry, the old tradition, by and large, prevails. This scenario, I reckon, signals a pressing need to recompose the notes of the pharma marketing playbook, in general, and very soon.

B. Studying the future digital trends and customize:

To find out about what digital trends to expect in future, the February 2006 survey by the Economist Intelligence Unit had asked survey takers and executives about the online trends they learned during the previous 12 months from their children or other young people. The top three new trends came out as follows:

Social networking,
Podcasting
Multi-player video games

These are just examples, individual pharma marketers would need to take calls about the relevance of specific digital tools and trends relevant to their business and customize them accordingly.

C. Two important marketing tactics proposed:

It is becoming quite evident now, across the world, that with the stakeholders-mix and the traditional doctor-focused “push” messaging delivered mainly through a large sales force coverage, are not generating commensurate a return on investments.

While this approach still remains somewhat relevant for the doctors, one needs to find out what is happening to effectively engage the other important stakeholders. For example, what is happening to those patients who are seeking meaningful engagement through various digital platforms for healthcare?

Recently, the Wharton School, Google and McKinsey & Company teamed up to write a new e-book entitled ‘Pharma 3D’, which proposes the following two important marketing tactics:

To reach patients, pharma companies need to leverage broader engagement models through alternative digital channels (including wearable, online, and social media).

Pharma companies can no longer rely solely on their relationships with physicians; they also need to engage with other influencers, like online communities and social networks.

D. Pharma marketing organizations may consider doing 3 things for success:

The authors of ‘Pharma 3D’ suggested that the pharma marketing organizations may consider doing the following three things really well, for success:

They Discover the behaviors, beliefs and needs of the people they are marketing to.
They Design experiences relevant to the people they are marketing to.
They Deliver those experiences consistently, superbly, and efficiently.

Conclusion:

Though Peter Drucker had said long ago that marketing and innovation are two most critical functions of any business and only these two produce business results, in the overall pharma marketing activities a wide gap between the modern marketing realities and the current marketing practices still exist, rather glaringly.

It is true that digital tools are now being selectively used by some pharma companies, these largely fall in the area of digitizing the manual functions, with some add on gimmickry, and glamor quotient built into it.

In my view, pharma companies, especially in India, should no longer rely solely on building relationships with the physicians. Their top marketers also need to directly engage with all other crucial influencers, including the expert groups, online communities, and the social media, whenever required, leveraging the broader stakeholder engagement models.

The old pharma marketing playbook is slowly, but surely going out of sync with the stark market realities of date. So are the mindsets of a large section of the pharma marketers. It is now high time for the top management to create an appropriate marketing organization, and then encourage it composing the new notes for a contemporary, and a more relevant marketing playbook, jettisoning the old one, for good.

By: Tapan J. Ray

The Next Frontier: Frugal Innovation For High-Tech Drugs

Posted on May 30, 2016 by Tapan Ray

Should drug innovation models remain as expensive as what these are claimed to be now by the global pharma industry, in general?

Finding a credible, appropriately quantifiable, and generally acceptable answer to this question is critical. It won’t, then, just be a myth-buster for billions of dollar price tag, that is now being attached to drug innovation and development initiatives, by the global pharma industry, as a justification for arbitrarily fixing high new drug prices. If the upcoming and new startups with frugal models for even high-tech drug innovation succeed with flying colors, the patients and the payers would also possibly breathe a huge sigh of relief, from the increasing burden of disease and the cost of medicines.

I believe, it would eventually happen, may not be overnight, but over a period of time. I shall discuss in this article about some bright sparks, already visible in that direction.

The facade of high cost of drug innovation:

At the very outset, to avoid any possibility of misunderstanding, let me confess up front, just as many others, I also strongly believe that drug innovation is extremely important. It needs to be encouraged, protected and rewarded reasonably.

That said, let me also give the right perspective of how the cost of ‘drug innovation’ is being often misused as a facade for keeping the drug prices high, if not exorbitant.

According to a contentious study of ‘Tufts University Center for the Study of Drug Development’, the total cost of innovation of a new drug and bringing it to market, has increased more than double from US$ 1.22 billion in 2003 to US$ 2.6 billion in 2014.

Despite these numbers being vehemently challenged in credible journals, many global pharma majors still keep justifying the high new drug prices on the same old pretext. As a diversionary tactic, they relentlessly argue that innovation has to be adequately rewarded to keep its wheels moving in perpetuity, though no one challenges this basic fact, not even remotely.

The moot questions:

The moot questions, therefore, are: how expensive is the drug innovation and how does the global drug industry establish its relationship with high new drug prices? The answers to these queries must be clear, specific, quantifiable and credible, and not ethereal, if not airy-fairy.

In this context, my article titled, “How Expensive Is Drug Innovation?” found an echo in a globally reputed journal. An analysis published in the BMJ in May 2016 titled, “Propaganda or the cost of innovation? Challenging the high price of new drugs”, expressed deep concern on the rising prices of new medicines. It reiterated that this trend is set to overwhelm health systems around the world.

The above BMJ article also put forth similar questions: “What does it really cost to bring a new medicine to the market, and do these costs justify the high price?”

The authors pointed out that the pharmaceutical market is not actually a “free market” based on supply and demand with minimal government intervention through taxes, subsidies, or regulation. On the contrary, the pharma market is highly manipulated, and not focused on achieving the best prices, or even fair prices for essential and life saving medicines.

No linear link between high drug price and innovation cost:

As I discussed this subject in my previous article titled, “Arbitrary Pricing of Essential Drugs Invites State Intervention”, it has been well established by now that there is no linear, or any relationship between high drug prices and cost of drug innovation. Since long, this argument is being misused just as a façade to keep the cost of medicines high, and making high profits even at the cost of lower sales volume.

The façade has started crumbling:

In India too, the pharma MNCs often use the same façade to keep the prices of also their branded generics much higher than the comparable formulations manufactured by larger domestic pharma manufacturers. However, the façade has started crumbling in many countries, across the world. This gradually increasing general realization is welcoming.

The Governments in many countries, have now started acting. They are increasingly forcing the drug makers to eye for volume growth, by reducing the fat margin, and improving patients’ access to high-priced drugs.

Just to draw an example, I would quote a very recent development in this area, outside India. On May 20, 2016, the Chinese health authorities announced price cuts of up to two-thirds to three patented drugs, in their latest move to reduce the cost of healthcare for patients. It is noteworthy that this happened in the world’s second-biggest economy, after the United States.

Why is arbitrary drug pricing continuing?

It appears, the only reason for the majority of the drug players to continue keeping the new drug prices high is because they can still make huge money through a small segment of patients who can afford their brands. What about the rest? This doesn’t seem to matter to them, at all, unless compelled to, in various ways.

Need to totally demolish the façade of innovation:

Thus, there is a compelling need is to demolish the façade of innovation, decisively, for keeping medicine prices high.

To move towards this direction, some flickers of a sound possibilities, are now visible in the horizon. The ‘Frugal’ or the ‘Silicon Valley’ type startups for high-tech drug innovation models, especially in the biotech sector, have shown high potential to be a game changer in this area.

Frugal innovation models for high-tech drugs:

The quest to find a pathway towards this direction continues. Recently, Professor Atul Butte, Director of the University of California Institute of Computational Health Sciences, highlighted that like other Silicon Valley startups, almost anyone can bring a drug to market from their garage with just a computer, the internet, and freely available data. Professor Butte, students, and research staff have already explored various methods and approaches of scientifically utilizing this data in search for new medicines.

As reported in the May 5, 2016 issue of ‘The Conversation’, Professor Butte outlined this process for an audience of local and international scientists and medics in a talk given at the Science on the Swan conference held in Perth in May 2016.

Professor Butte outlined several models of ‘Frugal Innovation’, especially for new biotech drugs or finding new indications for existing drugs.

A. The search for a new target:

There could be several approaches to the search of a new biotech drug. An example of one such, that Butte’s team is reportedly engaged in, is the construction of a map of how the genetic profiles of people with particular diseases are related to each other. The team looked for diseases with very similar genetic profiles.

Some may argue, this process of discovering other uses of drugs, conventionally termed as “drug repositioning”, is in the strictest sense is not exactly a novel one. They may attempt to establish it by drawing an example from Viagra, which was originally developed for treatment of cardiovascular conditions. However, the major difference is that Viagra’s repositioning for erectile dysfunction is an outcome triggered by its side-effects in patients taking the drug for its original cardiovascular disease treatment.

B. Desk research and discovery:

The primary desk research can start from the freely available enormous published genetic data, based on thousands of studies on humans, mice and other animals. The publications’ websites are also highly credible, such as, National Institute of Health and the European Molecular Biology Laboratory. Thus, as a result of abundantly available high quality genetic data, the cost of genetic sequencing, using gene chip technologies, is also coming down quite rapidly.

C. Animal testing:

After the potential drug discovery in the garage, there is a need to test the drugs on animals.

As Professor Butte suggests, this process also can be made much less expensive. For this purpose, he recommends the internet and the websites, such as, Assay Depot. This site is structured like Amazon, from which a researcher can order an experiment to be carried out to test a drug on a range of animal models, as the report states.

Butte finds this Internet based process very useful for ‘choosing the experiment type the researcher wants, adding it to a shopping cart, paying by credit card and getting the experimental results mailed back in a few weeks’ time.’ Such websites also offer wide choices to the researchers, even regarding the laboratory they would like to use, including the country where the laboratory is located.

D. Human Trial:

As ‘The Conversation’ article indicates, once a new use for a drug has been shown to work in an animal model, the next step would be to test the drug on human volunteers, get approval for the use of the drug for that condition, and then finally take the drug to market.

This purpose could involve spinning out startups with money from investors. In California, Professor Butte and his students have already followed this process after discovery of new uses for several drugs.

As Professor Butte epitomizes, none of this would be possible without sharing data. The ‘Frugal innovation’ models also highlight, how the growth of availability of open research data will be able to discover a range of uses, that would not have been foreseen, when the individual experiments were being carried out.

Would Big Pharma gobble up these startups?

If ‘Big Pharma’ starts gobbling up these startups paying exorbitant prices, the expectations of lower prices of novel drugs may possibly not come to fruition. Nevertheless, the facade of innovation for high drug prices would crumble. But, surely some other different and well-orchestrated pretext would surface, to maintain their stubbornness to continue with the same business model of very high margin and lesser volume sales, with cash register ringing, as ever.

Here is an example. ‘The Huffington Post’, in an article of May 10, 2016, reported on Big Pharma’s betting on a cancer drug startup.

The May 2016 article said, the pharmaceutical giant AbbVie acquired a startup named ‘Stemcentrx’ in a deal that values it at as high as US$10 billion.

The startup Stemcentrx has found out a unique approach, though somewhat controversial, for treating several forms of cancer. While most of today’s treatments view cancer as a result of unchecked cell growth, wherein any cell is capable of becoming cancerous, Stemcentrx believes that cancer primarily sprouts from only one cell type: cancer stem cells.

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, hopefully, the evolving models of ‘Frugal innovation’, development and commercialization of high-tech drugs, are expected to be the game changer for quickly bringing a number of new drugs, or existing drugs for new indications to the market, for many disease conditions, at very affordable cost.

Big Pharma may not allow it happen so easily, just for vested interest, but the pressure group must keep a close vigil on this development, and more importantly, must prevail.

Thus, the next frontier of pharma research and development, would possibly shift to small startups of ‘Frugal Innovation’, especially for affordable high-tech drugs, extending their access to the majority of the patients, the world over.

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.

How Expensive Is Drug Innovation?

Posted on May 16, 2016 by Tapan Ray

High prices for patented drugs are quite often attributed to the exorbitant cost of drug innovation, by the global pharma players. This argument is played, replayed again, again… and again by them, in various ways and forms, especially when many eyebrows are raised, failing to fathom the primary reason for ever escalating prices of life-saving new drugs.

I find the same argument often getting echoed by some section of both the global and local media too, and also through some cleverly disguised and apparently sponsored articles on the subject.

In this article I shall dwell on this sensitive issue.

A strong justification:

The Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) based in Texas in the United States, in an article titled “The High Cost of Inventing New Drugs–And of Not Inventing Them”, published on April 16, 2015 reiterated that the financial cost of developing new drugs is indeed a big one.

It argues that “there is also a big cost to not developing new drugs, and that cost can be both financial and human. People may be able to live with the pain that an undiscovered drug might have alleviated, but they may not be able to do all the things they would have.”

The paper asks, “A cancer patient might still have a few productive years after a diagnosis, but how much would it be worth to the patient—and to society (think Steve Jobs), if a new drug could extend a patient’s life indefinitely?”

“The drug manufacturers poured money into finding a treatment for AIDS once it became clear the disease would take thousands of lives. The research and development was costly and didn’t emerge overnight, but being diagnosed with AIDS is no longer a death sentence,” the authors elucidated.

This is a very cogent argument, and nobody would dispute it. This issue lies somewhere else, as I would try to explore in this article.

The supporting data:

We also find supporting published data to justify the high cost of innovation with numbers.

On November 18, 2014, a new study by the ‘Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development’ highlighted that developing a new prescription medicine and gaining its marketing approval, which is a process often lasting longer than a decade, is estimated to cost US$ 2,558 million.” This number is indeed mind boggling by any yardstick.

While many details of the study remain a secret, only slightly more than half of this cost is directly related to research and development (R&D). For example, US$ 1.2 billion are “time costs” – returns that investors might have made if their money wasn’t tied up in developing a particular drug.

Not many takers:

Besides the above reason, for several other factors, there does not seem to be many takers for this exorbitant cost of innovation and bringing a new drug to the market.

The above study has become a contentious one and has, therefore, been challenged by many experts. I would give here just one example, out of many, from a highly credible source.

May 14, 2015 issue of ‘The New England Journal of Medicine’ questioned the methods used to generate the US $ 2.6 billion figure and raised the following interesting points in the above Tufts Center study:

The analysis was based on data that 10 unnamed drug makers provided on 106 unnamed investigational compounds that they had “self-originated.”

The raw numbers on which the analysis is based are not available for transparent review, and are likely never to be divulged.

Since a balanced assessment would have to take into account the costs of failures as well as successes, it is hard to evaluate the key assumption that more than 80 percent of new compounds are abandoned at some point during their development, which is a key driver of the findings.

Nearly half the total cost of developing a new drug (US$ 1.2 billion) was ascribed to this cost of capital, with only US$ 1.4 billion attributed to the funds actually spent on research. These capital costs were assessed at 10.6 percent per year, compounded, despite the fact that bonds issued by drug companies often pay only 1 to 5 percent.

In terms of access to capital, it’s interesting to note that large drug makers are among the U.S. firms with the highest amounts of profits held overseas. Two pharmaceutical companies are ranked third and fourth among all the U.S. corporations in this regard: Pfizer (US$ 69 billion) and Merck (US$ 57 billion), respectively. Collectively, another eight drug companies reportedly have an additional US$ 173 billion of capital that is retained overseas, untaxed by the United States. Such funds could potentially help with the cash-flow problem that plays such a large role in these estimated costs of drug development.

The Tufts calculations also explicitly do not take into account the large public subsidies provided to pharmaceutical companies in the form of research-and-development tax credits or substantial payments received from the federal government for other research activities, such as testing their products in children.

The US$ 2.6 billion figure does not consider drug-development costs borne by the public for the large number of medications that are based on external research that elucidated the disease mechanisms they address.

One recent analysis showed that more than half of the most transformative drugs developed in recent decades had their origins in publicly funded research at nonprofit, university-affiliated centers.

High innovation cost fails to justify high drug prices:

That even the high cost of innovation fails to justify high drug prices, was also echoed in an article published in ‘The New York Times’ on December 19, 2015.

The article categorically said, ‘there is ample evidence that drug prices have been pushed to astronomical heights for no reason other than the desire of drug makers to maximize profits. Prices in many cases far exceed what’s needed to cover the costs of research and clinical trials, and some companies have found ways to rake in profits even without shouldering the cost of drug development.’

Yet another justification of high new drug prices:

Yet another justification of a slightly different kind also frequently comes from the global pharma players for high prices of new drugs.

On May 2, 2015 ‘The Washington Post’ also published an article, which recapitulated this oft repeated justifications for keeping the prices of new drugs high, especially those for rare diseases, including many types of cancer. The key rationale of this argument: the smaller is the number of patients who need the drugs, more would be the need of the company to price the drugs high to recoup the significant costs of drug development.

On the face of it, this justification too may sound convincing. However, on the ground, even if this argument of the global drug companies fails to stand on its feet, post robust scrutiny of the experts. In that context, I shall cite two recent examples.

Two new research studies broke this myth too:

The Following two April 2016 study conclusively demolishes the above justification of the global drug companies:

1. On April 28 2016, a new study was published in JAMA Oncology, throwing a great deal of light on the robustness of the above reasoning. In this paper, the researchers looked at 32 oral cancer medications and found that launch prices of these drugs have spiraled upward, even after adjusting for inflation. The average monthly amount insurers and patients paid for a new cancer drug was less than US$ 2,000 in the year 2000, but it skyrocketed to US$ 11,325 in 2014.

2. In April 2016, another study published in Health Affairs found, when a drug became useful to a larger number of patients, the price also shot up. It, therefore, concluded as follows:

“Our findings suggest that there is currently little competitive pressure in the oral anticancer drug market. Policy makers who wish to reduce the costs of anticancer drugs should consider implementing policies that affect prices not only at launch but also later.”

Are high new drug prices, then arbitrary?

According to a July 2015 article published in JAMA Oncology, the high prices of new drugs, especially for cancer, are arbitrary. This is vindicated in the discussion of the article that clearly states, as follows:

“Cancer drug prices are rising faster than the prices in other sectors of health care, drawing concern from patients, physicians, and policy researchers. We found little difference in the median wholesale price of 21 novel drugs and 30 next-in-class drugs approved over a 5-year period (next-in-class drugs, $119 765; novel drugs, $116 100; P = .42).”

“Our results suggest that the price of cancer drugs is independent of novelty. Additionally, we found little difference in price among drugs approved based on time-to-event end points and drugs approved on the basis of RR (disease Response Rate). Our results suggest that current pricing models are not rational, but simply reflect what the market will bear.”

Thus, the derived fact is, the high prices of new drugs are neither dependent on high cost of drug innovation, nor on the number of drug users – high or low. Higher drug prices, therefore, appear to be nothing but arbitrary, the public justifications being no more than façades.

Is the real cost of drug innovation much less?

This question brings me back to the moot point, ‘What is then the real financial cost of drug innovation?’

The search for a generally acceptable answer to this question gets even more complicated, when one reads the paper of The Bureau of Economics, Federal Trade Commission’ in Washington, DC, published on March 7, 2006 in Health Affairs – the leading journal of health policy thought and research.

The paper estimates the cost per new drug to be US US$ 868 million. However, it says, “Our estimates vary from around US$ 500 million to more than US$ 2,000 million, depending on the therapy or the developing firm. The paper recommended that variations in cost estimates suggest that policymakers should not use a single number to characterize drug costs.

Conclusion:

This situation arises, because the drugs with brand names, whether patented or off-patent, do not compete on price in the pharma market, across the world. The primary reason being a consumer is neither the prescription decision makers nor can they exercise their brand choice in any manner. For any patients, a doctor always takes this decision, who is often influenced by the drug manufacturers, and may not be even aware of the drug price, as is generally alleged, globally.

This process is quite unlike to any other essential commodities. However, the ongoing marketing campaigns for branded drugs are quite a keen to commonly used consumer goods, carrying brand names and backed by high profile branding campaigns, where high prices rather add greater perceived value to the brand status.

But the irony is glaring. The administration of life-saving highly expensive drugs is not optional for any patient, whether poor or rich. These are necessary to save lives. Thus, does not merit arbitrary high-profit driven pricing, at least, from the standpoint of patient-centric ethical business practices.

It still happens, even at the cost of access to such drugs by a large majority of the global population, who requires them the most. In all probability, this process is likely to continue in the near future too, irrespective of the quest of many to fathom how expensive is the drug innovation, unless the government or other payers actively intervenes. I shall discuss this issue in my next article in this Blog.

Nevertheless, the answer to the crucial question, ‘How expensive is the drug innovation’ would continue to remain elusive to many, at least in the near term. This because, no global drug company is likely to allow any competent and independent experts group to arrive at this number in a transparent manner, which can also be peer reviewed. Nor would the pharma players, in all probability, furnish this information to any Government to justify the high price of their respective new brands.

Till this is done, pricing decisions of new lifesaving drugs would continue to remain arbitrary, primarily driven by high-profit motives. It is unlikely to have even a remote direct linkage to the cost of drug innovation, limited consumer access notwithstanding, just as what happens with many branded consumer goods.

By: Tapan J. Ray

An Evolving Paradigm of ‘Price-Value Model’ Of Pharma Value Delivery System

Posted on May 9, 2016 by Tapan Ray

May 4, 2016 edition of the ‘MIT Technology Review’ published an interesting article carrying the headline, “The World’s Most Expensive Medicine Is a Bust”.

The obvious question that floats at the top of mind: What is this most expensive drug in the pharma history, and why has it failed commercially, despite being a product of disruptive innovation and a marvel that stands out in the space of contemporary drug innovation?

The product is called Glybera (alipogene tiparvovec). It heralded the dawn of the “first gene therapy” in the Western world, whose approval helped ignite an explosion of investment and excitement around treatments that correct DNA, as the MIT article said.

Glybera promises to cure rare inherited diseases with one-time repairs to a person’s DNA. A single dose of gene therapy can change the genetic instructions inside a person’s cells in ways that last many years, or even a lifetime.

Interestingly, even with this unprecedented product offering, the product has become a commercial flop, due to its staggering million-dollar price tag, which very few patients can afford.

Is this an extreme example of price-value relationship for a new breakthrough pharma product? Yes, of course! Nevertheless, it makes us ponder on some key fundamentals, afresh, such as:

The core purpose of drug innovation
The price-value relationship of even breakthrough drugs

The proper understanding of these points comprehensively, especially the above two fundamentals, would enable the drug companies to achieve both, the core purpose of intricate drug innovation initiatives, and also making these medicines commercially successful with increased access to patients, through innovative ‘value delivery’ mechanisms.

I believe, the pharmaceutical industry is now at the threshold of a paradigm shift. The new paradigm would signal a metamorphosis in the price-value equations for all drugs, mostly due to changing socio-political environment, across the world, as we have started witnessing in the topmost free economy of the world – the United States.

Pharma business is a ‘value delivery system’:

Way back in June 2000, an article published in ‘McKinsey Quarterly’ on delivering value to the customers, deliberated on a 1988 paper of Michael J. Lanning and Edward G. Michaels. The study combines the value-maps developed in the price-value models with the idea of the “business system,” which was introduced in 1980.

The paper titled, “A business is a value delivery system,” emphasizes the importance of a clear, well-articulated “value proposition” for each targeted market segment. This means a simple statement of the benefits that the company intends to provide to each segment, along with the approximate price the company will charge each segment for those benefits.

Looking at this concept in pharma perspective:

Keeping the above paper in perspective, when we look at the pharma value delivery system, besides the key benefits that a drug offers, one of the most critical value parameter continues to be the financial value.

The healthcare value chain, across the world, has started sharpening its focus on the drug cost today, more than ever before. This is primarily based on the differential value that a drug offers as compared to its closest alternatives. We may like it or not, it is happening irrespective of, whether the drug in question is a breakthrough innovation, or an off-patent high-priced generic medicine.

As I said before, not just in India, the affordability of health care in general, and medicines in particular, is rapidly emerging as a key concern for all developed and the developing nations, including the United States.

Thus, even after careful consideration of all novel product’s benefits and the costs associated with these, the stakeholders’ focus is getting sharper on the overall financial value of the product offerings to the patients. This is reality, and can’t just be wished away by any measure of powerful and expensive advocacy campaigns, together with clever media management.

The drug companies may continue to crib about it, but this will possibly lead them nowhere, in the long term. Instead, they would require to search for a workable win-win and level headed solution, for this most fundamental business issue.

Understanding the evolving paradigm:

We are fast arriving at this new paradigm. There, the financial value of a drug, in the ‘value delivery system’ of pharma marketing, would occupy the center stage. The drug companies would need to arrive at this financial value, not just by understanding the professional mindset of the doctors and taking them on board somehow, but by properly understanding what would the majority of stakeholders want to pay for a new drug, and then perhaps work backwards to translate that finding into reality.

Its successful application would soon assume a pivotal role in the pharma value delivery system. A company may contemplate pricing a drug high, limiting its access to a few rich, and still succeed in making its cash register ringing, such as, some new hepatitis C or cancer drugs. Nonetheless, this could ultimately make their overall business socio-politically too vulnerable, and may not be sustainable either, in the long run.

The same old and current approach does not create a wholesome value for a new drug to most of the customers, despite the company having a state of art ‘value delivery platform’, for unleashing a dazzling marketing blitzkrieg.

The pharma marketing strategy remains unchanged and stale:

At a time, when a paradigm shift is taking place, especially in the way the entire world views at the price-value equation of a new drug, the overall strategic approach of the pharma marketers, as I see it, still remains in the old paradigm, with its roots firmly entrenched there.

I think it so, because the traditional pharma marketing has always been a unilateral communication process, predominantly involving the doctors, and trying to fathom their needs, wants and professional mindset.

Accordingly, the product value delivery process for the doctors, with or without the medical representatives, is basically woven around those needs, wants and mindsets of the target doctors. It, by and large, continues even today, with some cosmetic changes in tools and formats here or there.

Therefore, when the basic marketing and communication process aims at effectively delivering the value of drugs, let us discuss briefly what does the core value of a drug mean?

The value of a drug:

For this purpose, I reckon, it would be prudent to avoid an ethereal approach to arrive at the financial value of a drug, such as, what is the cost of a life, as often raised by many pharma players. A practical approach to resolve this issue would benefit all, in every way.

Without going much into the core purpose of pharma innovation, usually the drug companies define the value of a medicine based on what they think about its attributes. Accordingly, respective players arrive at its financial value, that the patients or the payers must pay for, if they want to have an access to it.

Usually not many independent studies are conducted by the drug companies to ascertain how much the majority of stakeholders, including the governments, payers and patients, would want to willingly pay for a new drug, after well considering its value offerings.

Competitive Scenario:

The ever increasing, and virtually obsessed focus on drug ‘innovation’, while justifying the high financial value of a medicine for the patients, also restricts competition, especially for newer ones. For most of the patients this situation is a double whammy.

Additionally, the consolidation process within the industry is also fuelling this situation further. The virtual monopoly of a few companies with some new drugs, in key therapy segments, such as, diabetes, cancer, vaccines and HIV, is restricting the overall competitive environment. This would continue.

A September 24, 2014 Article, published in the ‘Insight’ of Bain & Company on the throws some light on the subject. It says, “over the past 20 years, and especially since 2000, building leadership in a category has become a crucial route to success in pharma. Seven of our 10 leading value creators, including Roche in oncology and Novo Nordisk in diabetes care, generated at least 50 percent of their revenues from one therapeutic area or primary care. In two cases – Biogen Idec in neurology and Celgene in oncology – more than 90 percent of revenues came from a single therapeutic area.”

As I said, this process is expected to continue, it is necessary for the drug companies, governments, other payers and the patients understand the new paradigm, and act accordingly to address this issue to protect mutual benefit.

If it does not happen, the evolving socio-political environment, across the world, would occupy the driver’s seat to navigate through this complexity, in the healthcare space in general and pharma in particular, safeguarding the patients’ health interest.

The core issue:

In the prevailing scenario, the core issue that gets reinforced, yet again, as raised by many, including the World Health Organization (WHO), is the growing inherent conflict between predominantly the profit driven business goals of the pharma players, and the public health interest of a nation.

Possibly for this reason, Dr. Margaret Chan, the Director General of the World Health Organization (WHO), at a briefing to discuss the Ebola outbreak in West Africa at the UN Foundation in Washington on September 3, 2014 said:

“Big Pharma’s greed for profits, not lack of funding, delaying Ebola treatment development.”

Many countries are now seriously striving to arrive at a middle path to resolve this perennial conflict, India included. The drug companies may wish to take note of it.

I discussed this issue in an article published in this Website titled, “Is The Core Purpose of Pharma Business Beyond Profit Making?” on November 10, 2014.

Conclusion:

As the above ‘McKinsey Quarterly’ paper articulated, the strength of the buying proposition for any customer is a function of the product value minus the price. In other words, the ‘surplus value’ that the customer will enjoy once that product is paid for. As the paper clarified, the “value” in a price-value map will necessarily be informed guesses, though after well-considering multiple variables.

Delivering more of this ‘surplus value’ to patients, willy-nilly, would soon be the name of the game, especially for the winners in both the global and local pharma industry.

In the entire drug sector, including India, this ‘price-value model’ could help a pharma company ascertain the sustainability of its competitive position, well considering the stakeholders’ perspective, and accordingly take the right business decision.

Thus, proper understanding of the ‘surplus value model’ while pricing a drug, and its immaculate execution through state of the art marketing and communication strategies, will separate the men from the boys, for sustained excellence in the pharma business.

Sans understanding of this ‘price-value model’, which is so important in the evolving new paradigm of a pharma value delivery system, a pharma player would risk getting caught in a tough headwind, especially with new high-priced products. This situation could, in turn, jeopardize its long term success, and even erode the well-earned company reputation, in tandem, at times mercilessly.

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: innovation

How Cost-Effective Are New Cancer Drugs?

Awaiting The Two To Tango: Pharma Innovation And Public Health Interest

Relevance of Artificial Intelligence In Creative Pharma Marketing

Déjà Vu In Pharma Industry

The Next Frontier: Frugal Innovation For High-Tech Drugs

How Expensive Is Drug Innovation?

An Evolving Paradigm of ‘Price-Value Model’ Of Pharma Value Delivery System