Tag Archives: management

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Achievement of a key milestone could make all the difference:

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

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

Five principles formed the bedrock of the ADP approach:

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

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

The change management process continues:

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

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

Specific areas of change, as the pandemic wanes:

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray       

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

 

Exploring An Exit To India’s Covid Management Maze

Posted on by
Reply

‘India’s Covid-19 Crisis is Spiraling Out of Control. It Didn’t Have to Be This Way,’ was the headline of the lead article, published in The Time with the cover page ‘India in Crisis.’ All Indians also believe the same, as the current reality is shown virtually live in TV news channels daily, with experts commenting on the same.

Ironically, many in the country’s leadership still remain in a ‘denial mode’, even when the country records globally highest number, ever – over 402,110 daily new Covid-19 cases with 3,688 daily deaths, on April 30, 2021. One can also gauge how grim the situation is from the example of the US alert to its citizens in India. It says, ‘access to medical care is becoming severely limited because of a surge in Covid-19 infections and those wishing to leave the country should take advantage of available commercial transportation options.’

Notably, when most Indians, including the President of India, were taking pride in the country’s ‘Aatma-Nirbhar Bharat Abhiyan,’ especially in the Covid-19 vaccine area, during the pandemic, the stark reality appeared to be quite different. Pandemic demonstrated that each country is, in fact, interdependent. One may not acknowledge it in the days of hubris. However, when a crisis, like Covid 2.0 strikes the nation hard and interestingly – not unannounced, as many experts write, the reality dawns. This is also a reality that India as a nation could not adequately prepare itself for Covid 2.0 onslaught, even over a yearlong Covid 1.0 pandemic.

Nonetheless, India now needs global help, almost for everything – in the prevailing calamity – Oxygen, drugs like, Remdesivir – and vaccines, besides many others. Quite expectedly, witnessing the Covid 2.0 tragedy in India ‘Aid (also) pours in from the world to counter India’s Covid-19 second wave.’ Alongside, along with Indian media, even foreign media reports, ‘Bodies piling up at crematoriums: Record death toll may hide extent of India’s COVID-19 crisis.’

Amid Covid crisis, most countries in the world, including the United Kingdom, the United States,Israel and even India’s neighboring country - Bhutan focused on the mass Covid vaccination drive – at a blistering pace, to create a herd immunity. In this article, I shall explore the drivers and barriers for India to achieve a similar goal, soon.

Current developments with vaccine in India:

The latest development is – after a protracted hesitation, the Government of India opened ‘Covid-19 vaccination for all above 18 years of age,’ effective May 01, 2021. However, not so good news is, this happened at a time when the country is experiencing a Covid-19 vaccine shortage even for all adults above 45 years of age. Believing that government has taken this decision without enough advance preparation, experts warn, India is likely to face extreme Covid vaccine shortage from May 1.

They express concern: ‘India is running out of vaccines just as the new wave of Covid-19 infections batters the country, complicating Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s plan to inoculate the nation’s workforce while threatening to drag out the world’s worst healthcare crisis.’

India rejected ‘emergency use’ of imported Pfizer and other vaccines, unlike other countries:

Some decisions by Indian vaccine expert panel also delayed more vaccine availability in the country for ‘emergency use,’ sooner. For example, Reuters reported on February 05, 2021, ‘Pfizer drops India vaccine application after regulator seeks local trial.’ The Company had applied to the DCGI for a waiver of a local trial for importing its mRNA vaccine in India.

Similarly, as reported on February 25, 2021, ‘Expert panel seeks safety data for Russia’s Sputnik V Covid-19 vaccine before emergency use nod,’ in India. Ironically, it was again rejected on April 01, 2021. However, facing the fierce Covid.2.0 wave Sputnik V vaccine is now being imported from Russia. Similarly, as reported on April 30, 2021, ‘Pfizer begins exporting U.S.-made COVID-19 vaccine to Mexico.’ Pfizer has already exported 10 million doses to Mexico.

In the quagmire of indecision, late decision and other non-life saving priorities are omnipresent:

Many Indian and overseas experts opined that valuable time was lost to have more vaccines in India, by now. This is because, amid a wrenching surge in infections and deaths, on April 14, 2021 – ultimately, India agreed to fast-track vaccine approvals for ‘emergency use,’ without local trial. These are now applicable to all those Covid vaccines that have already been authorized by ‘drug regulators in the US, UK, European Union and Japan or cleared by the WHO, without having to conduct a local bridging trial.

The above developments, I reckon, gave rise to two core issues in vaccinating the Indian population of above 18 years of age – at a ‘blistering pace,’ as happened or is happening in countries, like the UK or the US.

Whereas, for speedy mass vaccination wealthy governments took a quick decision to stock up on COVID-19 shots from Pfizer and Moderna Inc, because of their extremely high efficacy. More so, when safety concerns and production problems temporarily sidelined vaccines from AstraZeneca Plc and Johnson & Johnson.

Two core issues for a speedy vaccination process in India:

No domain experts in the world doubt that mass vaccination is India’s Covid-19 escape route from the prevailing health care massacre. However, arising out of the above developments, successful implementation of Covid vaccination process  on the ground, making it available and affordable to all, poses a giant challenge. Thus, to effectively address the two core issues, with the quality of speed that it deserves, finding answers to the following questions are critical:

  1. How to add speed to the vaccination process?
  2. How to avoid different pricing for the same vaccine for the Central Government, the State Governments and the Private Hospitals? This will give a choice to the population for speedy vaccination, removing many personal apprehensions involving the entire process.  

Let me give an example, each of the most recent quagmire related to each one of the above issues.

All vaccination centers in Mumbai were shut for three days for shortages:

Reuters reported on April 30, 2021 carrying a headline, ‘Indian states run out of COVID-19 vaccines; nationwide inoculation delayed.’ It added, several Indian states have run out of COVID-19 vaccines a day before a planned widening of a nationwide inoculation drive. Interestingly, quoting Indian authorities it elaborated: ‘All vaccination centers in India’s financial capital Mumbai were shut for three days starting Friday due to a shortage of vaccines, as the country posted another record daily rise in coronavirus cases.’ The same saga can be witnessed in the national capital of India. ‘Don’t queue up outside Covid-19 vaccination centers tomorrow, the stock will arrive in 1-2 days,’ urged the Chief Minister of Delhi.

The Government allowed Covishield and Covaxin price increase amid pandemic:

Covishield and Covaxin were being purchased by the central government at a price of Rs. 150 per/dose. While announcing Covid vaccination eligibility to all Indians above 18 years of age – despite vaccine shortages, the government allowed the two Indian vaccine manufacturers to increase the same vaccine prices – for direct supply to the state governments and private hospitals.

The manufacturers lapped up this decision and increased the vaccine prices by several times, amid catastrophic Covid 2.0 pandemic. For example, for state governments the Covishield price was raised to Rs.400/per dose and Rs.600/per dose – for Covaxin. However, facing severe criticism from all quarters the prices were revised to Rs 300 (Covishield) and Rs.400 (Covaxin). Interestingly, still the price increases were double or even more from the initial prices of Rs.150/per dose.  Interestingly, one manufacturer even boasted  this so called ‘price reduction’ from their initial humongous price increases, as a ‘philanthropic gesture’. Interesting indeed!

A hidden solution within Supreme Court questions to the Center:

While hearing a Suo Moto case in connection with the ongoing Covid 2.0 calamity in the country, the Supreme Court of India also took note of the difference in Covid vaccine prices for the Centre and the state governments. It observed Covid vaccine manufacturing is publicly funded, hence are public goods – these are ultimately meant for the people of India. At the same time, the apex court asked some of the following profound questions to the central government on Covid 2.0 management in the country:

  • Why is the center not following the national immunization program policy in its Covid-19 vaccination drive where the Centre will buy all vaccines from the manufacturers?
  • How much investment has the Centre made into the vaccine companies and given advances in the last year?
  • What has been the financial contribution by the Union govt in research etc. in the development of vaccines?
  • How will the Centre ensure registration for vaccines for illiterate people and those without internet access as registration through Co-Win is mandatory in the third phase of vaccination?
  • Will one state get priority access over another in getting the vaccines?
  • How will the Centre ensure equity by private vaccine manufacturers when it is buying only 50 percent of the doses?
  • Has the center considered invoking Section 92 of the patents act and issue compulsory licenses so that drugs can be manufactured while the royalty is sorted?
  • Why are we paying so much for this vaccine for which AstraZeneca has set at a far lower price to the US citizens?

One may possibly find a hidden solution to the question of invoking Section 92 of the Indian Patent Act (IPA 2005) to address some critical Covid vaccine related issues in India.

Is invoking section of IPA 2005 a near-term solution?

As many would know, Section 92 of the Indian Patents Act is a special provision enabling the Central Government to issue Compulsory Licenses for the manufacture of patented drugs in a public health emergency. Section 100 of the IPA enables the Central Government to use patented inventions for government purposes. Curiously, the Supreme Court of India has, reportedly, also observed: “This is an exact case where we should go for compulsory licensing. This is a situation of Public Health Emergency.”

Just to recap, on October 02, 2021, India and South Africa had proposed at the WTO about an IP waiver for Covid-19 drugs and vaccines that could help resolve the urgent issues of access and affordability to these products. It has also been reported: ‘Richer members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) blocked a push by over 80 developing countries on Wednesday to waive patent rights in an effort to boost production of COVID-19 vaccines for poor nations.’

Although, U.S. Trade Representative has recently met with Pfizer and AstraZeneca to discuss this proposed IP waiver for Covid vaccines and drugs, what stops India to invoke Section 92 and 100 of its own Patent Act even during this seemingly uncontrollable Covid 2.0 pandemic?

The April 06, 2021 article of the Observer Research Foundation aptly epitomized the need of the hour. It articulated: ‘As the pandemic continues to rage, countries collectively have to find innovative ways to not just increase the production of vaccines, but also ensure their timely distribution at affordable prices.” Such an initiative may encourage more manufacturers in India to manufacture enough Covid vaccine, facilitating speedy inoculation to Indians and at the same time the government can make its price affordable for all concerned.

Conclusion:

The question, therefore, arises: Is India’s exit to the Covid 2.0 maze now visible? But, before arriving at any possible conclusion in this regard, one may try to address, at least, the following two critical questions:

  • Can Covid vaccines be reverse-engineered by domestic pharma industry without inventors sharing ‘Know-How’?
  • Can the IP waiver by the WTO or invocation of section 92 and 100 of IPA 2005 by India, legally mandate vaccine developers, like AstraZeneca, Pfizer-BioNTech or Johnson & Johnson, to share know-how with others, if they do not want to do so?

The resolution of the above issues won’t happen in a jiffy – at this stage. It may take more time. So, I reckon, will be the search for a permanent exit to India’s Covid 2.0 management maze, to avoid a similar strike by Covid 3.0, if or as and when it will come. Thus, till all adult Indians get vaccinated, each one of us must comply with Covid appropriate behavior responsibly, to save ourselves, our families, neighborhood, and above all our own nation.

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.

Acid Test For Excellence in Crisis Leadership

Posted on by
Reply

On April 12, 2020 – in the morning of the day 19 of the national lockdown, India’s total number of Coronavirus positive cases reached 8,504 with 289 deaths. The country’s trajectory is reportedly  steeper than most Asian peers, such as Singapore, Japan, and Indonesia. Incidences of new infections and deaths are also rising faster. The report also highlighted a possible link between number of tests conducted and the number of confirmed cases across the States. The aggregated impact of Covid19 outbreak has created an unprecedented health, social and economic calamity, changing everybody’s life – now and beyond.

However, going by Prime Minister Modi’s announcement on March 24, 2020, the national lockdown to contain the pandemic should continue till April 14, 2020. But, the above scenario is creating a huge dilemma within almost all Coronavirus crisis management leadership in the States, with the final decision resting upon the Prime Minister of India. Meanwhile, on April 09, 2020, Odisha government decided to extend the lockdown until April 30, followed by Punjab, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Telengana on April 11, 2020. However, all will get to know India’s decision in this regard for the rest of India, as you read this piece today.

The top leaders of Asia, Europe and American continents are handling the grave situation differently, with a varying degree of success, so far. Everybody is watching different world leaders in action – each trying hard to gain control over the unprecedented crisis, making it an acid test for excellence in Crisis Leadership.

Three different types of needs for the country:

As I see, three specific types of needs of three specific classes of people in the social milieu, are emerging in India:

  • Only need is to save life from the disease, with not much problem in procuring other essential requirements – having enough wherewithal to pull through the critical period, better than most others.
  • Strong need exists to save life, but facing tough challenges in arranging for essential needs for daily living.
  • Need to save life, but feel desperate for the means of livelihood – to protect family and defendants from hunger, in a seemingly uncertain future.

In the current situation, while trying to contain the spread of pandemic effectively, the sufferings of especially, the second and third group, as stated above, also need to be addressed, ‘and this is much aided by a participatory democracy.’

An acid test for crisis leadership at the top:

The situation isn’t just a war against Covid19, but much beyond that. The Nobel Laureate Professor Amartya Sen at Harvard University  explained the situation so well in an article, published on April 08, 2020. He lucidly illustrated, that the needs of people in a natural calamity, such as Coronavirus caused a pandemic, are different from a conventional war – against an enemy country. Desirable leadership qualities are also significantly different.

As Professor Sen wrote, while managing a crisis situation during a conventional war, ‘a leader can use top-down power to order everyone to do what the leader wants – with no need for consultation.’ But, managing a crisis during a natural calamity, a leader should demonstrate skills for a ‘participatory governance and alert public discussion.’ Listening to public discussion makes the top leadership understand what needs to be done by the policy makers.

Another paper, titled “Steering Through the Storm,” published in the ‘People + Strategy’, also reiterated the same with different words. It emphasized, “during a crisis, like natural calamity, leaders should engage actively with their constituents whenever possible, distinguishing critical issues from less pressing needs, communicating risks, and maintaining readiness. Throughout the crisis, leaders should remain accessible and open to new sources of information, and take care of their own needs when necessary and appropriate.”

How different countries are demonstrating crisis leadership:

Like other countries, crisis leadership is now clearly visible even in India – right from 1 day ‘people’s curfew’, to the announcement of 21-day national lockdown for Covid19 outbreak. An interesting article, published in Forbes on March 10, 2020, deliberated on what China, Italy and the United States teach us about crisis leadership. These examples give a sense of how different countries, facing similar but country-specific problems with Covid19, reacted with remarkable ‘different approaches and results.’ I am paraphrasing below some recent illustrations on crisis leadership, as captured in the above paper:

China: China was the first country to face this calamity beginning in Wuhan of the Hubei province. With command and control leadership and decisive action China was able to immediately to garner and consolidate all its resources for an aggressive response. The World Health Organization called it as, “perhaps the most ambitious, agile and aggressive disease containment effort in history.” This includes closing down manufacturing sectors, sharing information widely, executing mass testing and quarantining millions of people. The Chinese government made the decision to absorb a significant economic cost to contain COVID-19 rather than potentially lose control and the result was effective - the number of new cases has steadily decreased in weeks’ time.

However, the downside of this type of leadership is the possible erosion of trust in the system. As the Atlantic documented, local Chinese officials reported the Covid19 outbreak to the federal government weeks after it began. They also understated the extent of the disease spread, until whistle-blowers stepped forward – and were subsequently punished. This delay probably cost China valuable time in containing the initial outbreak.

This demonstrates, under a command and control ‘crisis leadership’, when people are afraid to tell the truth and discouraged from speaking up, critical information may not reach leadership, until the problem intensifies, the paper added. That said, whether the COVID19 outbreak may have been contained earlier under different leadership conditions, cannot be concluded for sure, at least, in this case. However, official data release now shows more than doubling of new Coronavirus cases to 99 in Mainland China, on April 11, 2020. Moreover, newly reported asymptomatic Coronavirus cases also nearly doubled to 63 on the same day. Hence, the fire has still not been doused. The crisis lingers.

Italy: The catastrophic impact of Covid19 in Italy, helps identify some avoidable areas in ‘crisis leadership’. With rapidly changing and inconsistent messaging, the leaders possibly created panic and distrust among people of all kinds. The top leadership seems to have underestimated the potential spread of the virus, and was not acting in coordination with various groups and stakeholders to contain it, initially.

It happened, despite Italy is a democratic country, unlike China. But, the country, apparently, did not comply with the robust and critical ‘crisis leadership’ norm of fact-based ‘participatory governance and alert public discussion’, as discussed above. This reconfirms that ‘crisis leadership’ must be very careful in saying something they will end up contradicting later, while handling, especially a social calamity, like Covid19 outbreak.

The United States: With the fire of Covid19 outbreak spreading fast in the United States, one finds again, some basics of crisis management norms were missing in the top leadership of the oldest and a robust democracy of the world. Instead, President Trump demonstrated ‘a tendency to rely heavily on his inner circle rather than subject matter experts and to state opinions as facts.’ The President also contradicted experts on his own task force attempting to educate the public, most notably by consistently overstating the scientifically acknowledged timeline to create a vaccine and the preventive medicine combo. He also questioned the reported fatality rate of the virus.

This type of ‘crisis leadership’ is likely to fail in inspiring trust and confidence with the masses, the article concluded. This is evidenced by the current status of the country. The lethal firepower of Covid19 is still hitting the United States very hard, against all its might to fight the invisible enemy garnering all its resources and possibly taking more lives than what it lost, as on date, while fighting all its wars. As on April 11, 2020, the death toll from Coronavirus in the United States eclipsed Italy’s for the highest in the world, surpassing 20,000 marks.

Now let me focus on India, with my own assessment about the ‘crisis leadership’ while responding to this crisis, of course, initially.

India:

To get a perspective of Covid19 spread in South Asia on a relative yardstick, let’s look at the following Government released figures, as quoted in the Reuters report on April 08, 2020:

Country Ind Pak Afghan Sri Lanka Bangladesh Maldives Nepal Bhutan
Cases 5274 4072 444 189 218 19 9 5
Death 149 58 14 7 20 0 0 0

On April 11, 2020, the World Bank estimated, the ‘worst economic slump in South Asia in 40 years.’ Further, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and other three smaller nations, with 1.8 billion people and thickly populated cities, although have so far reported relatively few Coronavirus cases, could be the next hotspots for Covid19.

With this, let us look at the Covid19 narrative being unfolded in India, so far. In a lighter vein, following the interesting events with ‘sound’ and ‘light’, the ‘camera’ of time has indeed captured a commendable display of high quality ‘crisis leadership’ in India. Especially, under the given circumstances prevailing at that juncture. The leadership approach fits so well into one of the most critical requirements of crisis management – ‘participatory governance and alert public discussion.’

Even, some seemingly pointless events for some, at the end of the day, did raise morale of many in the fight against Covid19 outbreak, besides their level of participation and involvement in this crisis. Whether or not it is purely due to the personal charisma of the Prime Minister and his huge followings, also doesn’t matter much, as the point is, what really happened, instead of why it happened.

Besides, right from the declaration of ‘Peoples Curfew’ of March 22, 2020 to 21-day national lockdown, the Prime Minister has involved the State Chief Ministers, but also the leaders of opposition parties. Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) is also visible in the forefront. The net result is the support that the Prime Minster is getting from all, despite hardship – an epitome of ‘crisis leadership,’ as on date.

Thus, the beginning has been laudable, especially when India had no option but to enforce a lockdown, in one form or the other, without having enough testing kits, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for healthcare manpower and required health care infrastructure for quarantine or isolation of people. Let me explain this point with a very recent example.

According to a recent report, Covid19 test guidelines presumed that most patients in India acquired the virus from their travels abroad, or from someone who travelled abroad. Accordingly, with a limited number of kits, tests were conducted to zero in on these patients, isolating and quarantining them, to curb the spread of the virus. very focused with lesser requirements of the testing kits.

However, the data compiled by ICMR from random Coronavirus tests on patients with severe respiratory diseases, indicate that 38 percent of Covid19 patients with no travel or contact history have contracted the virus. On April 10, 2020, the Government said that the testing has now been increased to 16000 from earlier 5000-6000 people per day. This raises the vital question: has Covid19 outbreak in India has progressed or progressing from stage 2 to stage 3 of the outbreak, or has the community spread of the disease begun, the last and final stage being stage 4 – the scary virtually uncontrolled Coronavirus outbreak? Alarmingly, as has been widely reported, even on April 12, 2020: ‘Coronavirus in India: Several targets missed, still no sign of rapid testing kits.’ Currently, ‘India ranks extremely low in the Coronavirus-hit countries list based on the number of tests done per million population.’

Thus, the declaration of 21-day national lockdown on March 24, 2020, at the early stage of the Coronavirus outbreak in India was an unprecedented decision. Besides, containing the rapid disease spread, it gave India a small time-space to prepare itself – with more testing kits, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for healthcare manpower and adequate number of high-quality – isolation, quarantine and treatment facilities, equipped the disease specific requirements, such as, ventilators.

No matter what, the decision for a 21-day nationwide complete lockdown, giving priority to life over livelihood was a tough call to take for any leader. It indeed was a part of the critical test for excellence in ‘crisis leadership,’ at that point of time.

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, as the saying goes ‘proof of the pudding is in the eating,’ the acid test for excellence in ‘crisis leadership’, obviously, will be based on the quality of outcomes and the time it will take. This will include multiple key factors, such as, the speed of health, social and economic turnaround of a country, which is sustainable. Nevertheless, the crisis is far from being over – anywhere in the world, just yet, and the jury is still out.

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.

 

Pharma’s Perception Management

Posted on by
Reply

An intriguing input-output relationship in the pharma industry has remained baffling, since the last several years, where increasing financial inputs are resulting in diminishing productivity output. More disturbing is, this input-output relationship has now reached a new low, with their individual swings moving in the diametrically opposite directions – as numerous reports of 2019 point out. The deteriorating situation of this magnitude would make many to feel sad, especially those who were or are intimately associated with this industry, for quite a while.

Strikingly, the trend encompasses even the largest – and one of the most influential pharma markets of the world – the United States. Which is why, the subject assumes greater importance. As one can witness today, regardless of the outcome, most American drug companies and their increasingly resourceful trade associations, reportedly, keep unleashing political, non-political and financial capital to influence pharma related policies in different countries. In tandem, they also try to create a favorable public perception in areas of vested interest, in many important markets, including India. These efforts cost money, and tons of it.

This process is not new, though, and was there in the past, as well. It also yielded results at that time, unlike what is happening today. This was mostly because of less public awareness on health-related issues, and a better general perception of the industry. Curiously, despite a sharp diminishing return, the same process is being followed, even today, with a lot more inputs and internal hype. Ironically, the snowballing effect of pharma’s ‘perception challenge’ is now all pervasive. It is visible even in the most market driven and business-friendly countries, like America. They have a requisite talent pool, financial resources and other wherewithal to manage perception – the best possible way. Then why it’s not happening?

To make it happen, I reckon, the core purpose of pharma business should be to delight the patients – more of them – the better. With a similar vision, the drug industry could achieve what it wanted to in the past, also making a good profit, unlike what has been openly expressed in the recent years. This article would, therefore, explore the reasons behind it’s not happening now, through the prism of perception management. However, before examining that, let me give examples of the quantum of financial inputs that the pharma industry constituents are using today to achieve its lobbying goals, vis-a-vis, its declining public perception, as we see in 2019. 

Pharma lobbying expenses are shooting north:

According to the Bloomberg report of January 23, 2019, the main trade group of the pharma industry in America – Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), spent a record high amount of USD 27.5 on lobbying in a single year – 2018. This was quoted from the public disclosure reports. Although this was the highest for PhRMA to date, ‘the pharmaceutical industry has upped its spending over the last few years, as it faces immense pressure over high drug prices from the public, Congress and the Trump administration,’ – the news highlighted.

Another article, published in The Guardian also indicated: ‘Pharmaceutical companies spend far more than any other industry to influence politicians.’ It further added, hundreds of millions of dollars flow to shape laws and policies that keep drug company profits growing. One more article highlights, the wide reach of pharma industry money can be traced among people and groups who are in a position to influence drug policy – think tank that has received funding from a major pharmaceutical lobby, and doctors who accepted payments from drug companies.

Moreover, Kaiser Health News (KHN) analysis also found that such money reaches even patient groups for supporting the industry whenever required. The analysis detected ‘about half of the groups representing patients have received funding from the pharmaceutical industry.’

Globally, the general interest of the public on the affordability of quality drug treatment package that pharma companies offer, is fast increasing. Recognizing this fact, the entire approach of pharma lobbying appears blatantly self-serving.

Whereas pharma’s lobbying output is diving south:

The governments in many countries can now make it out, even when this is done covertly – keeping the so called ‘patient groups’ and ‘doctors’, as mentioned above, in the forefront. As many can clearly decipher the core purpose behind such stealth approaches of pharma players, the productivity or output of pharma lobbying is going south in a bottomless pit, as it were. Still, to reduce stakeholder pressure on drug pricing, its apparently getting more intensive, across the world and particularly in America.

The Bloomberg report of January 23, 2019, captures how this situation, on the contrary, is bringing public, government and opposition leaders together on the reduction of drug prices. The news underscores: ‘One of the few issues that unites President Donald Trump and the Democrats newly in charge of the U.S. House of Representatives is reducing the price of prescription medicine. Both sides will be looking for accomplishments to tout at a time when the pharmaceutical industry has become a target of public ire.’

Regardless of these developments, the age-old pharma lobbying approach remains unchanged. There doesn’t seem to be much visible interest, either, for a radical and innovative ‘perception management’ approach to salvage the situation.

Pharma’s ultimate goal has to change to delighting customers – the best possible way, where the quantum of profit earned will be a measure of customer satisfaction. This is what the management guru Peter Drucker said, long ago. Since, this is not happening, both patients’ and public perception on the industry, is getting from bad to worse, which has been captured in the 2019 Gallup poll.

2019 Gallup Poll: Big pharma sinks to the bottom of U.S. industry rankings:

The September 03, 2019 issue of Gallup carried the headline - Big pharma sinks to the bottom of U.S. industry rankings while announcing ‘American’s Views of U.S. Business, Industry Sectors, 2019.’ Being more specific, it said, ‘The pharmaceutical industry is now the most poorly regarded industry in Americans’ eyes, ranking last on a list of 25 industries that Gallup tests annually.’

Elaborating it further, the author stressed, Americans’ net ratings for the pharmaceutical industry have never been lower since Gallup first polled on industries in 2001. Over the past 19 years, few industries have been rated lower than the pharmaceutical industry’s current – 31 net rating. These include the federal government and the oil and gas, real estate, and automobile industries.

The age-old process of pharma lobbying is not working anymore:

‘Lobbying’ is the term that is more frequently used in the United States and the Western countries. In India, similar campaigns are called ‘Advocacy’, by pharma trade associations. These activities are carried out by concerned individuals or companies, industry associations, paid employees – hired for this purpose, or by any other interested groups. But, everybody’s common goal is primarily aimed at influencing government policies, or mold top influencers’ opinion in favor of business – overtly or covertly.

That traditional mindset of pharma lobbying is no longer working, came to the fore some time back. The October 28, 2016 articles, published in the CNBC, cautioned with a headline – ‘A warning for Big Pharma: Lobbying won’t work anymore.’

The article candidly suggested to big pharma players: ‘If you try to use the same old lobbying and crony networks to get your way, it won’t work. Not anymore. And here’s a special warning call just for Big Pharma: You need to change your public relations and marketing strategies now, or die. The good news is, unlike so many other industries, the drug companies have a very effective way out of this mess.’ Making no bones about it the author said, ‘no industry seems more clueless right now than Big Pharma.’

Acknowledging that: ‘Several reports say the Big Pharma lobbying group known as PhRMA is looking to spend as much as $300 million and pull out lots of other stops in order to defend higher prescription drug costs.’ The paper emphasized: ‘this is a battle the drug giants can’t win.’ This is because: ‘Public and political sentiment against expensive medicines and companies that charge those prices is at a fever pitch.’ This, I reckon, is changing the old paradigm of pharma lobbying.

Managing public perception – the new ballgame to influence policies:

Thus, the bottom line to note, today’s public policies are increasingly driven by public sentiments, their needs, aspirations and demand. Thus, the old, and the virtually counterproductive system of lobbying with lawmakers and some key opinion leaders, often including a few media friends, has to change. Even the covert ways of achieving it, under the guise of some trendy events or seminars, hyped by the best communication and PR professionals, are also not yielding commensurate results.

The first task will, therefore, be to come out of this decade old self-created imbroglio, as the pharma’s topmost head honchos will hopefully realize that the name of today’s  game is ‘managing public perception’ of the pharma industry. This would simultaneously necessitate replacing the self-serving goals with the ones that would delight the customers – genuinely – sans façade of any kind.

Pharma’s reputation to be on par with the tobacco industry?

According to ZS: ‘Recent polls and surveys demonstrate that the pharmaceutical industry’s reputation continues to be plagued by negative perceptions.’ It further adds: ‘Many consumers still consider pharma’s reputation to be on par with the tobacco industry, positioning one product category that treats cancer just above a product category that causes it.’ It appeared in the Aug 01, 2017 issue of ZS, titled ‘Reputation Is Paramount, So What’s Holding Pharma Companies Back?’

Is reputation mostly driven by perception?

The reputation or image of a person, an organization or any industry is generally a matter of perception of individuals, formed based on multiple reasons. As Edward de Bono - Physician, author, and originator of the term lateral thinking had put it – ‘Perception is real even when it is not reality.’ Accepting this dictum, even more profound is what he said further - ‘You can analyze the past, but you need to design the future.’

It’s critical to understand the process of ‘perception,’ as out of so much available information, only some are selectively received, organized and interpreted to develop individual perception. More important is the fact that perceptions often become strong inputs to take individual decisions, actions or to express views.

‘Designing the future’ from the pharma industry perspective:

To design an inclusive model of the pharma industry future, the first requirement will be establishing a ‘true connect’ between the industry and the public, based on the latter’s expectations, aspirations, needs and demands, from the industry. This new process being far from self-serving in nature, needs to be steered by ‘perception management’ experts, based on credible data pool – and not by the gut feelings of the hard-core lobbyists or self-styled advocacy experts.

The reformed industry objective – ‘delight the customers while making money’, will form the core of this new ‘perception management’ model. This would entail fleshing out – step by step, the blueprint of its action plan, while pharma should be seen by all to walk the talk.

Creating a positive perception for pharma:

As described in the book ‘Getting Ahead,’ creating a positive perception would prompt taking four basic steps, each of which will help enhance the current view that others have and improve any negative opinion that exists.

Taking a cue from what the author suggests, the first step is to discern how pharma industry is generally perceived by others. Each and every industry practice affecting its stakeholders, particularly patients, is being observed, analyzed and directly affects how others perceive the industry. The author further adds, ‘inaccurate perceptions show you how easy it is for others to incorrectly perceive you.’

The second step is also equally important, as it involves knowing, without any bias, how the industry is ‘actually’ perceived and why – mainly based on consumer feedback, collected and analyzed on a scientific platform.

The third step may involve an intensive internal brainstorming of scale, to zero-in to how the pharma industry would ‘want’ it to be perceived and capture the same in an easy to understand format for all, after pilot testing it.

And the fourth step is most challenging that will help determine how to replace the current perception with the most desirable one.

Conclusion:

As rising drug prices increasingly becoming a major political and public talking point, pharmaceutical groups in America are, reportedly, splurging heavily to influence public opinion and policy. With a spending of roughly USD 280 million, it featured at the top spot among lobbying spenders in 2018 – - with no other industry coming close. However, when one looks at the outcome of such spending either in the American political sphere or within the government, one can find what even President Trump is saying - ‘One of my greatest priorities is to reduce the price of prescription drugs.’ Similarly, when it comes to the public – the Gallup Poll 2019 points out:‘The pharmaceutical industry is now the most poorly regarded industry in Americans’ eyes, ranking last on a list of 25 industries that Gallup tests annually.’

The old industry practices - “from generating the highest drug costs in the world to spending massive amounts on lobbying politicians to the industry’s role in the U.S. Opioid crisis,” are no longer yielding results, due to a radical change in public perception of the drug industry. Even the most powerful current political personality and one of the most business-friendly politician – President Trump, can’t risk ignoring it.

If at all, the drug industry and its trade associations are trying to mold a favorable public opinion with such heavy spending, those efforts are also not working at all. Pharma’s public image crash comes, as the general population strongly dislike, disapprove or remain indifferent on various drug-related issues or methods and processes that the industry follows to earn huge money – even at the cost of patients’ health interests. As a result, a strong negative perception of pharma is created that often indirectly impacts many policy decisions.

So far, pharma hasn’t succeeded in achieving one of its key lobbying goals by managing public perception, effectively. To make it happen, its predominating self-serving interest, that is progressively alienating the public, must be jettisoned, forthwith. The time is ripe to create a new, strong and sustainable public perception for the industry, even in India, by managing customer perception, while making them feel genuinely delighted with company’s products and service offerings. With these contemporary inputs, conducive government policies facilitating a strong business performance, will surely be the most cherished output.

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.

 

Opioid Crisis: A Looming Threat To India?

Posted on by
Reply

A serious, but a typical health crisis that has shaken America, is now, apparently, in search of its prey in India – a soft target to ignite a raging fire of misuse or abuse of prescription drugs of addictive in nature. That India could probably be the next victim of this menace, is now being widely discussed and reported in the international media, though not so much in India, itself.

The January 2019 communique of the National Institute of Drug Abuse spotlights: ‘Every day more than 130 people in the United States die after overdosing on opioids.’ Whereas, in 2017, more than 47,000 Americans, among 1.7 million suffering people, died as a result of an Opioid overdose. Snowballing effect of Opioids addiction commenced over a couple of decades ago and includes – both prescription pain relievers and synthetic Opioids, such as fentanyl, among others.

The health menace of this humongous dimension is not only jeopardizing public health, but also impacting the social and economic welfare, work productivity, besides drug addiction related criminal behavior of an increasing number of addicts.

In this article, exploring the factors – that not just ignited, but fueled this fire, I shall try to explain why India could be a fertile ground for another opioid epidemic. The key intent is to thwart this menace without further delay, learning from the ‘Opioid crisis’ in the United States. Moving towards that direction, I begin with a brief description of the genesis of this crisis, primarily to ensure that all my readers are on the same page to feel the gravity of the situation.

The genesis of Opioid crisis:

The terms – ‘Opioid epidemic’ or ‘Opioid crisis’are generally referred to rapid increase in consumption of prescription and nonprescription Opioid drugs in America that began in the late 1990s. It is noteworthy, until the mid-1980s and early 1990s, physicians seldom prescribed opiates because of the fear of addicting patients. This was established in several studies, such as, the July-August 2016 Article, titled ‘Drug Company Compensated Physicians Role in Causing America’s Deadly Opioid Epidemic: When Will We Learn?’

In the ninety’s, as the above paper indicates, some “medical experts and thought leaders led by the neurologist and pain specialist Russell Portenoy, MD, proclaimed that the risks of addiction to Opioids were minimal and that not treating pain was cruel and even amounted to medical negligence.” Incidentally, Russell Portenoy was at that time known as the “King of Pain” and was the Chairman of Pain Medicine and Palliative Care at Beth Israel Hospital in New York.

The paper also articulated, “Portenoy and his acolytes wrote articles and gave lectures to physicians about the safety of narcotics. They repeatedly cited a study by Porter and Jick in ‘The New England Journal of Medicine’ that stated that only one percent of patients treated with narcotics became addicted.” It is a different matter, as the authors indicated, the above trial was ‘not a controlled study at all. It consisted of a short 101-word one paragraph letter to the editor.’

Understandably, the rapid spread of Opioid use in America commenced on the following years. As The author highlighted: “To this day in most American hospitals, nurses on their daily rounds, ask patients to rate their pain on a scale of one to ten and then may administer a narcotic accordingly.”

HHS corroborates the fact:

In line with the finding of the above paper, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) traces the origin of the U.S. Opioid Epidemic in the late 1990s. When, asHHS also reiterated, ‘pharmaceutical companies reassured the medical community that patients would not become addicted to opioid pain relievers.’ Presumably, the general image of the pharma industry not being as questionable as today, ‘health care providers began to prescribe them at greater rates,’ – HHS further noted.

Thereafter, all hell broke loose, as it were.With increased prescriptions of Opioid medications, the widespread misuse of both prescription and non-prescription Opioids started taking its toll. Obviously, it happened as the prescribers were not as cautious and restrictive and concerned about prescribing Opioids because of their addictive nature, as they were before 1990s. It seems unlikely that astute medical practitioners won’t be able to fathom the devastating health impact of such highly addictive medications on the users.

America had to declare the Opioid crisis as public health emergency: 

In 2017 HHS declared Opioid crisis as a public health emergency, announcing a strategy to combat this epidemic. Separately, in October 2017, President Trump also declared the same as the ‘worst drug crisis in U.S. history’.One can sense this Presidential level urgency from the recent report of The Washington Post. It emphasized - ‘America’s largest drug companies saturated the country with 76 billion oxycodone and hydrocodone pain pills from 2006 through 2012, as the nation’s deadliest drug epidemic spun out of control.’

The above information comes from a database maintained by the Drug Enforcement Administration that tracks the path of every single pain pill sold in the United States – from manufacturers and distributors to pharmacies in every town and city. The data would provide an unprecedented look at the surge of legal pain pills that fueled the Opioid epidemic, resulting in nearly 100,000 deaths from 2006 through 2012, as the article highlighted.

In view of this, and also looking at the chronology of the genesis of this crisis, it is worth exploring the role of pharma companies in triggering this health hazard in America.

The role of pharma companies in the crisis: 

That there is, apparently, a role of some big pharma players in the Opioid crisis was widely reported by the international media. One such article titled, ‘Big Pharma Is Starting to Pay for the Opioid Crisis. Make Those Payments Count,’ was publishesby The New York Times, on August 28, 2019.

It said: ‘As innumerable court documents and investigations have shown, Opioid makers, including Purdue and Johnson & Johnson, routinely and knowingly misled the public about their products. They played down the risks of addiction, insisting that their drugs were safe and, if anything, underutilized. And they combated growing concerns with aggressive lobbying and public relations campaigns.’

The September 01, 2019 article titled – ‘America’s Opioid catastrophe has lessons for us all, about greed and racial division’, published in The Guardian went a step forward. Explaining the reason for the situation to attain a ‘crisis’ stage, it said, ‘big pharma saw huge profits in medicalizing the social stress of the white working class.’ Thus, the question that comes up, is there any strong and credible evidence to associate Opioid crisis with pharma marketing?

Association of Opioid crisis with pharma marketing:

Several reports point towards a possible pharma-doctor nexus for the Opioid crisis. One such evidence is provided by the same  July-August 2016 Article, as quoted above. The paper said:‘Recently and belatedly, Portenoy has backtracked and admitted he was wrong about the addictive properties of Opioids.’ He was quoted in the article saying: “I gave innumerable lectures in the late 1980s and ‘90s about addiction that weren’t true.”

Another original investigation report in this regard, titled ‘‘Association of Pharmaceutical Industry Marketing of Opioid Products With Mortality From Opioid-Related Overdoses’, was published in JAMAon January 18, 2019. The paper concluded:‘In this study, across US counties, marketing of Opioid products to physicians was associated with increased Opioid prescribing and, subsequently, with elevated mortality from overdoses. Amid a national Opioid overdose crisis, reexamining the influence of the pharmaceutical industry may be warranted.’

The article also indicated: ‘Recent data suggest that when physicians receive Opioid marketing, they subsequently prescribe more Opioids.’ The researchers pointed out:‘Amid a worsening Opioid crisis, our results suggest that industry marketing to physicians may run counter to current efforts to curb excessive Opioid prescribing.’

Again, the same September 01, 2019 article, published in The Guardian, also stresses– ‘The relationship between big pharma and US doctors can only be described as corrupt.’ Quoting the official figures, it highlighted: ‘The total paid to doctors and hospitals by drug companies was more than $9bn. Unsurprisingly, the greater the payments, the more willing doctors were to prescribe Opioids.’

The India’s tryst with Opioid drugs:

As many would know, India has remained for a long time one of the largest Opioid medicine producers in the world. However, most of the country’s population had a restricted access to Opioid pain relief drugs.

This was because, the International Narcotics Control Board, established in 1968, and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act of 1985 ‘codified the bureaucratic thicket for any doctor who wanted to prescribe opioid painkillers. Physicians feared fines, jail sentences and losing their medical license if they skirted regulations.’

The amendment came in 2014:

According to reports, the need for pain relief being “an important obligation of the government,” the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, was amended in 2014, creating a class of medicines called the “essential narcotic drugs.” The list of which includes, morphine, fentanyl, methadone, oxycodone, codeine and hydrocodone. Alongside, the conditions for bail in drug offenses will be relaxed and the mandatory death penalty for those previously convicted of certain offenses will be revoked.This is expected to create a better balance between narcotic drug control and the availability of Opioid drugs, for beneficial use of patients.

The flip side – a looming threat?

So far so good. Nevertheless, another article – ‘How big pharma is targeting India’s booming Opioid market,’ appeared in The Guardian on August 27, 2019, shows the flip side of this development. It says, as India loosens its stringent narcotics laws, ‘American pharmaceutical companies – architects of the Opioid crisis in the United States and avid hunters of new markets – stand at the ready to fuel that demand.’

Many are truly concerned about it, especially in a country like India, where any medicine can be procured over the counter, hoodwinking robust drug laws. Thus, as the above article adds, ‘a looming deluge of addictive painkillers terrifies some Indian medical professionals, who are keenly aware that despite government regulations most drugs are available for petty cash at local chemist shops.’

Providers of pain management are increasing, so also self-medication:

Today, ‘pain management’ as a specialty treatment, can be seen in many hospitals of the country. In tandem – apparently, ‘at the insistence of the professional societies that accredit hospitals in India, nurses and doctors are now encouraged to assess pain as a “fifth vital sign“, along with pulse, temperature, breathing and blood pressure.’ Besides, as The Guardian article of August 27, 2019 also noted, ‘General practitioners have started prescribing these drugs.’

Yet another important point to note, according to studies, one of the most common reasons for self-medication is for pain – 18.34 percent, where self-medication is done with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in 49.4 percent of cases. Keeping pace with this trend, most generic pharma companies are having pain management product in their brand portfolio, unlike a couple of decades ago.

Early signs of drug companies’ special marketing activities:

There are many examples. But I shall quote The Guardian article again to drive home this point. The paper talks about hints of ‘American pharma’s fingerprints’ in a glass cabinet in the waiting room of a famous clinic in Delhi. Some of these include ‘awards from Johnson & Johnson honoring the doctor for symposia on pain management; a plaque for “his valuable contribution as a speaker” about tapentadol, an Opioid marketed by Johnson & Johnson in 2009. The dispensing counter does a brisk business in Ultracet, branded tramadol tablets made by a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary.’

Alongside, another interesting point is peeps in – the drugs, which are now commonly prescribed for chronic pain were first approved for use by cancer patients. ‘One of the first formulations of fentanyl, for example, was a lollipop because chemotherapy left cancer patients too nauseated to eat. In India, pain physicians now prescribe fentanyl patches to patients with chronic muscular pain.’

Every year, more of such drugs are coming to market. Many chemists, hospitals and medical shops are also acquiring requisite licenses for keeping these drugs. Curiously, Opioids are available in not just oral, but injectable, patches and syrups – the article noted.

Conclusion:

There are many striking similarities between the developments that preceded the American Opioid crisis and the emerging scenario of the same in India. One such is, its onset in America was in the late 1990s, with the regulatory relaxation in introducing Opioid drugs. However, the first announcement of the full-blown crisis on the same, took a couple of decades to come.

In India, the regulatory relaxation for some Opioid drugs came in 2014, and now its 2019. Thus, it’s possibly too early to even track, in which direction it is moving. However, given the prevailing overall healthcare scenario in India, the concern remains palpable. The decision makers, hopefully, would consider putting in place effective checks and balances, taking a leaf from the American Opioid epidemic. The measures should include, among others, effective implementation of legal and regulatory provisions; making health care delivery systems robust and transparent; protecting vulnerable patients from rampant and irresponsible self-medication, besides promptly addressing general concerns with pharma marketing practices.

The whole process should be aimed at benefitting the deserving patients, suffering from excruciating pain, while minimizing Opioid drug misuse or abuse. There should not be any repetition of human sufferings on this score, like what people are now witnessing in America. Effective action from all concerned – right from now, will decide whether or not Opioid crisis is a looming threat that India can successfully neutralize.

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.

Gamification in Pharma: Creates Engaging Patient Experience For Better Results

Posted on by
Reply

On January 03, 2019, media reports flashed – “A video game-based ‘digital medicine’ tool can help reduce symptoms in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention/deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).” This study was published in the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, confirming the feasibility and safety of the tool called Project: EVO, which delivers sensory and motor stimuli through an action video game experience.

This initiative reconfirms that technology is becoming a great enabler to provide integrated, comprehensive and cost effective approach in treating many diseases, particularly with ‘Digital Medicine.’ The above report on ‘Project EVO’ is an example of application of the concept of ‘gamification’ in digital medicine. Many consider ‘gamification’ as a game changer to create an engaging patient experience with added value. It makes patients getting involved in the disease-treatment process, especially for effective self-management of chronic disorders.

I shall focus on this area in today’s article, giving examples wherever available. However, let me start by recapitulating what is ‘gamification’ in the pharma industry.

Gamification: 

The Oxford dictionary defines ‘gamification’ as: ‘The application of typical elements of game playing (e.g. point scoring, competition with others, rules of play) to other areas of activity, typically as an online marketing technique to encourage engagement with a product or service.’ It further adds, ‘gamification is exciting because it promises to make the hard stuff in life fun.’

‘Gamification’ is assuming increasing importance, with disruptive digital innovations gradually becoming game changers in the pharma business. This is mainly because, it can deliver to a specific group of patients, doctors or other stakeholders exactly what they look for – with precision.

I suggested in my article, published in this blog on January 07, 2019 that pharma companies should facilitate self-management of chronicailments,not just for better outcomes, but also for improving the quality of patient engagement. To achieve this objective,‘gamification’ could play a remarkable role-such as disease awareness and prevention and when afflicted its desirable self-management. This has the potential to create a win-win situation between patients and a drug company.

This is so important, as ‘the old paradigm of the paternalistic model of medicine is now transforming into an equal level partnership between patients and professionals, aided and augmented by disruptive technologies. This comment was made in a study titled, ‘Digital health is a cultural transformation of traditional health care,’ published in mHealth on September 14, 2017.

‘Patient-doctor partnership is critical in the new paradigm:

One of the major ways to develop a partnership between the treating doctors along with the product/service providing pharma companies and patients is through mutually beneficial ‘patient engagement’ programs with added value.

That such programs can create a unique patient experience of better outcomes at a lesser cost, has already been established by a number of credible research studies. Taking a cue from quantum benefits that this initiative provides, many pharma companies are now making ‘patient engagement’ strategy as an integral part of their overall market access program, including the process of branding.

What does an effective patient engagement strategy involve?

An article titled, ‘Patient Engagement: A Key Element in Pharmaceutical Marketing Strategy,’ published in the IgeaHub on May 29, 2016 defines ‘patient engagement’ as a concept that combines a patient’s knowledge, skills, ability and willingness to manage his own health and care with interventions designed to increase activation and promote positive patient behaviors. This measure also involves offering relevant services to patients.

To assess the opportunity of patient services in the pharma industry, Accenture conducted a survey titled, ‘Pharma’s Growing Opportunity in Patient Services’, on 200+ pharma patient services executives, covering seven therapeutic areas – heart, lungs, brain, immune systems, bones, hormone/metabolism, and cancer. The study concluded,the future of patient services that requires patient engagement, is bright. It elaborated by saying, this approach offers pharmaceutical companies a tremendous opportunity – for those willing to invest in the right places and let patients know about them in the right way.

To move in this direction, ‘gamification’ is an efficient way for the pharma companies to follow. Let us see below how does ‘gamification’ work on the ground.

How does ‘gamification’ work?

According to the findings of Innovatemedtec, ‘gamification’ with health apps typically works in the following three ways:

  • Allowing users to share progress and results with their friends or other users of the service, creating a competitive spirit to elicit more or better use of the specific health app service.
  • Giving virtual gifts, such as badges, medals, stars during each stage of progress, generating a sense of achievement for greater patient motivation levels in disease monitoring and management.
  • Advanced medical health applications can provide real-time biofeedback with built-in sensors. Or using a storytelling approach and explaining health literature related to diagnoses, medical procedures and patient behavior.

Thus, the primary reasons for introducing ‘gamification’ in the pharma industry would be to improve the disease awareness and increasing patients’ motivation for self-management for mutual benefits.

Improves disease awareness and motivation for self-management:

The precise rationale for ‘gamification’ in the pharma industry was nicely articulated in the ‘M.Sc. Thesis titled, ‘Gamification in the Pharmaceutical Industry – Exploring how European Pharmaceutical Organizations can build and use Gamified Mobile Applications to Improve Relations with Patients.’ This was written by Nanna Birkedal and jointly delivered by the University of Stirling and Lund University.

It highlighted: “Patients and industry experts both argue that awareness is important; constant reminders about healthy habits are pivotal for an improved lifestyle. Patients furthermore need to be motivated to act upon this and actively implement the required lifestyle changes. If pharmaceutical organizations succeed in helping the patients with overcoming challenges related to their illness by motivating them to enact the needed lifestyle changes, it will increase the perceived trust towards their brand and thereby strengthen their relationship with the patients. This research argues that digital gamification is suited for this purpose, hence why it may be advantageous for organizations to incorporate digital gamification …”

Why and how to motivate patients for self-management of chronic disease?

As I said before, after proper diagnosis of a chronic ailment and charting out a medical treatment pathway, self-management of the disease by patients plays a critical role. Thus, the question arises, how to motivate patients and more importantly, keep patients motivated for engaging in self-management of such nature.

There is also a need for continuous improvement of the ‘gamification’ process for a long-term engagement of patients, leading to progressively better outcomes. Many examples of success with ‘gamification’ are available for chronic diseases, such as diabetes.

One of the metrics used in ‘gamification’ to help diabetic patients stick with a digital health platform, making it a higher priority in their daily lives, is to provide useful timely information on their disease condition. This metric may include informing the user about some tangible changes in their health risks due to the disease. For example: “Over the last month your effective glucose has reduced the risk of losing your eyesight by 10 percent.” Accordingly, the patients may earn points or badges for using the app and accomplishing certain important tasks.

In this way, gamification can immensely help self-management through behavioral changes, improving disease outcomes. As Healthcare in America also reiterates: ‘There is nothing more motivating than knowing your health is improving in real time.’

Another study, and two examples of ‘gamification’ in pharma:

Another study titled, ‘Gamification: Applications for Health Promotion And Health Information Technology Engagement’, published by ResearchGate arrived at an interesting conclusion. It reiterated: ‘Game-based approaches (gamification) can provide ideal strategies for health promotion, prevention, and self-management of chronic conditions. However, there is a need to clearly define components and uses of gamification in healthcare for increased patient engagement in health information technology.’

Elaborating the point further, the authors emphasized that many health/physical activity apps provide feedback in a clear and concise manner and in a variety of formats (e.g., graphs, text or icons). The available option to share the feedbacks on social networking sites allows for further engagement by individuals and adds additional motivation and encouragement in attaining users’ goals. However, it recommends more studies to explore and identify the suitability of ‘gamification’ for health in clinical settings.

There have been several instances of gamification efforts health care with powerful effects. Let me cite just two interesting illustrations from mobihealthnews, as follows:

Conclusion:

As available from various literature, such as Healthcare in America, there are enough well-verified testimony, indicating that patients are motivated by gamified elements.

Consequently, some major global pharmaceutical companies have started testing the water. For example, the Media Release of Roche dated June 30, 2017 announces, the company has acquired mySugr - an Austrian startup that offers gamified solutions for diabetes management in a fun way, both for children and adults. It, reportedly, has more than a million registered users in 52 countries and is available in 13 different languages. Post-acquisition, it will be an integral part of Roche’s new patient-centered digital health services in diabetes care.

Hence, ‘gamification’ in pharma carries potential to be a win-win strategy in creating engaging, motivating and a unique patient experience in self-management of chronic diseases, for better outcomes.

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.

Rewriting Pharma Strategy For ‘Doctor Google’ Era

Posted on by
Reply

In search of more and more information on an ailment, a large number of Internet savvy individuals now feel comfortable to consult ‘Doctor Google’ – much before approaching a qualified medical professional for the same. If and when they visit one, many would possibly have arrived at a ‘symptoms-diagnosis correlation’ – based on their own interpretations of the sessions with ‘Doctor Google’– right or wrong.

‘Doctor Google’ – a ‘weird’ terminology, was virtually unheard of, until recently. This name owes its origin to universally popular ‘Google Search Engine.’ The number of frequent ‘consultations’ with ‘Doctor Google’ is breaking new records almost every day – primarily driven by deep penetration of smartphones – a versatile device that helps to charting unhindered, anywhere in the cyberspace.

In this article, I shall not go into whether this trend is good or bad. Nonetheless, the hard fact is, in the modern digital age, this trend is fast gaining popularity, across the world, including India. I shall discuss below, why and how the impact of ‘Doctor Google’ syndrome sends a strong signal to pharma companies to rewrite their business strategies for sustainable future growth.

‘Doctor Google’ syndrome:

To be on the same page with all my readers, ‘Doctor Google’ terminology is used for the process of getting various disease, treatment or medicine related information from cyberspace and especially through Google Search.This practice is currently being followed by many individuals who arenot qualified medical professionals, but through ‘Google Search’ often try to self-diagnose a disease or medical condition, or other health related issues. Some may even cross verify a professional doctor’s advice with ‘Doctor Google’.

Today, it is not uncommon to visit ‘Doctor Google’ first, instead of immediately visiting a General Practitioner (GP) for seeking professional advice. The areas of such search may range from trivial to even serious health conditions. The bottom-line therefore is, prompt ‘information seeking’ of all kinds, including health, and forming an opinion based on available information, is fast becoming a behavioral pattern within Internet canny and smartphone equipped population, across the world.

Medical Journals also reported this trend:

This trend has been captured in medical journals, as well. For example, a paper on Dr. Google in the Emergency Department (ED), published by the Medical Journal of Australia (MJA) on August 20, 2018 concluded as follows:

“Online health care information was frequently sought before presenting to an ED, especially by younger or e-health literate patients. Searching had a positive impact on the doctor-patient interaction and was unlikely to reduce adherence to treatment.”

Yet another study titled, ‘What Did You Google? Describing Online Health Information Search Patterns of ED patients and Their Relationship with Final Diagnoses’, published onJuly 14, 2017 in the ‘Western Journal of Emergency Medicine’, came with a thought-provoking conclusion. Reiterating that Internet has become an important source of health information for patients, this study observed, many of these online health searches may be more general or related to an already-diagnosed condition or planned treatment, as follows:

  • 35 percent of Americans reported looking online, specifically to determine what medical condition they may have;
  • 46 percent of those reported that the information they found online led them to think they needed medical attention;
  • The majority of patients used symptoms as the basis of their pre-ED presentation Internet search. When patients did search for specific diagnoses, only a minority searched for the diagnosis they eventually received.

Availability of credible online ‘symptom-checkers’:

To help patients getting credible information on many symptoms, there are several highly regarded online sources for the same, such as, a Symptom Checker provided by the Mayo Clinic of global repute.

The purpose of this tool is to help narrow search along a person’s information journey. This is not purported to be a self-diagnostic tool. A ‘symptom-checker’allows searchers to choose a variety of factors related to symptoms, helping to limit the potential medical conditions accordingly. This tool does not incorporate all personal, health and demographic factors related to the concerned person, which could allow a definitive cause or causes to be pinpointed. It also flags, the most reliable way to determine the cause of any symptom, and what to do, is to visit a competent health care provider.

Further, the research letter titled, ‘Comparison of Physician and Computer Diagnostic Accuracy’, published in the December 2016 issue of JAMA Internal Medicine, records additional important findings, as follows:

  • Physician diagnostic error is common and information technology may be part of the solution.
  • Given advancements in computer science, computers may be able to independently make accurate clinical diagnoses.
  • Researchers compared the diagnostic accuracy of physicians with computer algorithms called symptom-checkers and evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of 23 symptom-checkers using 45 clinical vignettes. These included the patient’s medical history and had no physical examination or test findings.
  • Across physicians, they were more likely to list the correct diagnosis first for high-acuity vignettes and for uncommon vignettes. In contrast, symptom checkers were more likely to list the correct diagnosis first for low-acuity vignettes and common vignettes.

Nonetheless, the above examples further reinforce the fact that patients now have access to robust online health-related data, on various aspects of a disease treatment process.

Technology is rapidly transforming healthcare:

That technology is rapidly transforming healthcare is vindicated by the estimate that the global market for digital health is expected to reach £43 billion by the end of 2018. This was noted in an article, titled ‘3 ways the healthcare industry is looking more like Google, Apple and Amazon’, published in Pharma IQ on November 16, 2018.

Pharma companies are realizing that an increasing number of patients now have better access to online information regarding their overall health and medical conditions, including various prevention and treatment options with costs for each. As people take a more active role in managing their health, pharma players, especially in their engagement with patients, require moving from mostly passive to active communication platforms. Consequently, personalizing health care products and services is expected to become the new norm, making the traditional pharma business models virtually redundant, the article highlights.

While going through this metamorphosis, pharma sector would willy-nilly emerge as an integrated technology-based industry. More tech-based changes will call for in various critical interfaces related to an organization’s ‘patient-orientation’, which is today more a lip-service than the ground reality. Entry of pure tech-based companies such as Google, Amazon and Apple into the healthcare space would hasten this process.Although such changes are taking place even in India, pharma companies in the country are yet to take it seriously.

Pioneering ‘omnichannel’ engagement is pivotal: 

Again, to be on the same page with all, the term Omnichannel in the pharma parlance may be used for a cross-channel content strategy for improving patient engagement and overall patient-experience. This should include all touchpoints in the diagnosis and treatment process of a disease. It is believed, the ‘companies that use ‘omnichannel’, contend that a customer values the ability to engage with a company through multiple avenues at the same time.’ Thus, pioneering ‘omnichannel’ engagement is critical for a pharma player in today’s scenario.

A valid question may come up – is ‘Omnichannel (all-channel)’ patient engagement is just another name of ‘Multichannel (many-channel)’ engagement? No – not really. Interestingly, both will be able to deliver targeted contents to patients through a number of interactive digital platforms, namely smartphone-based Apps, specially formatted websites, social media community and the likes. But the difference is, as a related paper lucidly puts it - ‘Omnichannel approach connects these channels, bridging technology-communication gaps that may exist in multichannel solutions.’

That said, just as the above-mentioned pure technology companies, pharma players also need to learn the art of gathering a large volume of credible data, analyze those through modern data analytics for taking strategic decisions. This is emerging as an essential success requirement, even in the health care arena.

Precise data-based answers to strategic questions, as planned, are to be used effectively for omnichannel personalized patient engagement. This is fundamental to offer a delightful personal experience to patients, encompassing diagnosis, treatment, recovery, including follow-up stages of an ailment, especially involving the chronic ones. Only well-qualified and adequately trained professionals with in-depth pharma domain knowledge can make it happen – consistently, across multiple channels, such as social media, Apps and devices – seamlessly.

Real time customer data management is critical:

Virtually real time customer data management of huge volume that aims to provide ‘Unique Patient Experience (UPQ)’,is the lifeblood of success in any ‘omnichannel’ engagement. This is criticalnot just for right content strategy formulation, but also to ensure effective interaction and utilization between all channels, as intended, besides assessing the quality of UPQ. Once the process is in place, the marketers get to know promptly and on an ongoing basis, about the quality patient experience – as they travel through various touchpoints, to intervene promptly whenever it calls for. I explained this point in my article titled ‘Holistic Disease Treatment Solution: Critical for Pharma Success’, featured in this blog on October 29, 2018.

Credible data are all important – not just any data:

Real time voluminous data generation, coupled with astute analysis and crafty usage   of the same, has immense potential to unlock doors of many opportunities. The effective leverage of which ensures excellence in business. But most important in this endeavor, it is of utmost importance to ensure that such data are of high quality – always. Similarly, use of any high-quality data, if not relevant to time, in any way or outdated, can be equally counterproductive.

An article titled, ‘Hitting Your Targets: A Check-up on Data’, published at PharmExec.com on August 02, 2018, aptly epitomizes it. It says, no matter what sophisticated technologies a life sciences organization uses, and how smart its sales and marketing strategy is, if there are flaws and gaps in foundational provider data, the company will end up with wasted resources and lost market share. Implementing ongoing data governance and stewardship programs will help improve efficiencies, allocate resources, and target customers with increased precision.

Conclusion:

Going back to where I started from, it’s a fact that many Internet-friendly people now visit ‘Doctor Google’, much before they visit a medical doctor. Most probably, they will also arrive at a list of possible diagnoses, according to their own assessment.

While going through this process, they acquire an experience, which may or may not be new or unique in nature – depending on various circumstances. But the key point is, such patients – the number of which is fast increasing, are no longer as naïve as before on information related to a host of ailments. Consequently, the ‘pharma-patient interaction’ that has traditionally been passive, and through the doctors, will require to be more active and even proactive. This has to happen covering all the touchpoints in an involved disease treatment process where pharma is directly or indirectly involved.

To be successful in this new paradigm, pharma companies need to ensure that such ‘active communication’ with patients is necessarily based on a large pool of constantly updated credible data, exchanged through ‘omnichannel’ interactive platforms. The key success factor that will matter most is providing ‘unique patient experience’ through this process and its high quality. From this perspective, I reckon, rewriting pharma business strategy is of prime importance in the fast unfolding ‘Doctor Google’ era.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

The latest developments:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EvenGlaxoSmithKline tried something akin in the past.

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

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

Where is the real issue lying?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key reasons for non-compliance: 

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

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

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

Just tweaking the present system may not help:

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray   

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