Tag Archives: management

Exigency of Cybersecurity in Digitalized Pharma

Posted on by
Reply

Digitalization – as it unfolds and imbibed by most drug companies, is presumed to herald a whole new ballgame in the Indian pharma business. Equally significant is the quantum benefit that the process will deliver to pharma stakeholders – right from drug companies to patients. It has already hastened the process of new drug discovery and will also help charting newer ways to meaningfully engage with stakeholders, besides enhancing treatment outcomes for patients, appreciably.

However, the flip side is, more benefits a company accrues from digitalization, greater will be the risks of cyber-attacks. Thus, preventive measures should also be equally robust. Otherwise, hackers can bring a company’s digital system to a standstill, causing not just a temporary loss in revenue and profit, but also valuable data leak, with considerable impact on even long-term business.

Strangely, associated risks of digitalization to pharma companies are seldom outlined in any discussion, leave aside alternatives for salvaging such untoward situation, if or as and when it comes. Unless, it is felt that the scope of such discussion doesn’t cover the implementors and falls totally on cybersecurity experts.

Nonetheless, it is intriguing in the pharma space. The reason being, pharma industry believes, while talking about the efficacy of any drug, its vulnerability in terms of side-effects, contraindications or drug interactions, should also be known to its users. That’s the purpose of a packaging leaflet. It’s a different reason though, that most drug companies in India have virtually jettisoned this practice as a cost saving measure, even for drugs that are not under price control. That apart, in this article, I shall explore the relevance of cybersecurity in the digitalized pharma world.

A question that help understand its implication:

During organizational transformation through digitalization in pharma, just like any other business, all crucial documents get transferred from paper to digital formats. The key question that follows in this regard is – what happens to these digital documents post cyber-attacks, if any? Any attempt to answer this question holistically will help people realize its implication – that ‘cybersecurity must be more than an afterthought.’

‘Cybersecurity must be more than an afterthought’:

The article, ‘Cybersecurity in the Age of Digital Transformation,’ published by MIT Technology Review Insights on January 23, 2017, stressed upon this critical point. It highlighted: “As companies embrace technologies such as the Internet of Things, big data, cloud, and mobility, security must be more than an afterthought. But in the digital era, the focus needs to shift from securing network perimeters to safeguarding data spread across systems, devices, and the cloud.”

Thus, while discussing the need to digitally transform a company’s business, cybersecurity must be part of that conversation from the very start – the paper underscored in no uncertain terms. That’s exactly what we are deliberating today - ‘as companies embark on their journeys of digital transformation, they must make cybersecurity a top priority.’

The cybersecurity threat may cripple innovation and slow business:

Cisco explored the concept of Cybersecurity as a Growth Advantage by a thought leadership global study. While assessing the impact of cybersecurity on digitalization, it surveyed more than 1,000 senior finance and line-of-business executives across 10 countries. Some of the key findings, as captured in the Cisco report, may be summarized, as follows:

  • 71 percent of executives said that concerns over cybersecurity are impeding innovation in their organizations.
  • 39 percent stated that they had halted mission-critical initiatives due to cybersecurity issues.

Interestingly, 73 percent of survey respondents admitted that they often embrace new technologies and business processes, despite cybersecurity risk. However, as we shall see below, pharma executives are quite confident of cybersecurity, probably because of inadequate experience in this area, as on date.

Companies are struggling with their capabilities in cyber-risk management:

The paper published in the May 2014 issue of the McKinsey Quarterly journal, titled “The rising strategic risks of cyberattacks”, also flagged this issue. It said: “More and more business value and personal information worldwide are rapidly migrating into digital form on open and globally interconnected technology platforms. As that happens, the risks from cyberattacks become increasingly daunting. Criminals pursue financial gain through fraud and identity theft; competitors steal intellectual property or disrupt business to grab advantage; ‘hacktivists’ pierce online firewalls to make political statements.”

McKinsey’s research study on the subject, conducted in partnership with the World Economic Forum also upheld that companies are struggling with their capabilities in cyber-risk management. As highly visible breaches occur with growing regularity, most technology executives believe that they are losing ground to attackers. Its ongoing cyber-risk-maturity survey research also ferreted out the following important points:

  • Large companies reported cross-sector gaps in their risk-management capabilities.
  • 90 percent had “nascent” or “developing” ones.
  • 5 percent was rated “mature” overall across the practice areas studied.

Interestingly, the research found no correlation between spending levels and risk-management maturity. Some companies spend less, but do a comparatively good job of making risk-management decisions. Others spend vigorously, but without much sophistication. Even the largest firms had substantial room for improvement – McKinsey reiterated.

‘Corporate espionage’– a prime reason behind cyberattack on pharma:

An interesting article appeared in The Pharma Letter on July 18, 2017 on this subject. The paper is titled “Cyber-attacks: How prepared is pharma?” It said:“The pharmaceutical industry is a prime target for hackers. In 2015, a survey of Crown Records Management revealed that nearly, two-thirds of pharma firms had experienced breaches in data, and that one fourth of these same companies had been victims of hacking.”The paper also highlighted ‘corporate espionage’ as one of the prime reasons behind hacking.

In view of this, the author articulated that the need for pharma and healthcare companies to fortify their security systems has become clear in recent years. The best method of protection is to prevent cyber-attacks from happening, or at least reduce the risk of a hack, he advised.

Instances of cyber-attacks in pharma are many:

To drive home the point that when firms and other organizations fail to strengthen IT systems against attacks, they incur high costs -the above paper cited an example from the year 2016. It said: “The average global cost of data breach per stolen record was US$ 355 for healthcare groups, higher than losses in other fields such as education (US$ 246/record), transportation (US$ 129), and research (US$ 112).”

The author further emphasized that besides financial losses, pharma companies and other healthcare groups risk losing the trust of patients and other stakeholders. With the ongoing digitization in pharma, new threats may become even more pervasive and sophisticated. “Thus, investment in cybersecurity must be a priority, if pharma players are to protect their data and the data of their stakeholders”, he added.

Are pharma executives experienced enough on cybersecurity?

As reported by Pharma IQ on July 31, 2018, one of its recent surveys found that around 70 percent of senior pharma decision makers are “confident” or even “very confident” in their company’s IT security. But, digging deeper, the survey uncovered that:

  • 42 percent of respondents’ companies do not routinely follow IT security policies,
  • 49 percent said that the corporate risk profile is not firmly understood across all departments.

The survey concluded that this could potentially lead to gaps in the security process. To me it appears, this could, as well, be due to inadequate experience of pharma executives in this area.

But, investment in pharma IT is increasing:

The good news is, even in the current scenario, many pharmaceutical companieshave started making investments in IT solutions, in general. This is corroborated by the 2018 survey by Global Data. Some of its important findings are, as follows:

  • 79 percent of them are currently making investments in identity and access management (IAM) solutions
  • 72 percent are considering investment in the solutions over the next two years.
  • 75 percent of the respondents are currently deploying some form of backup, archiving, alongside content and web filtering solutions to store, as well as, preserve their online information. 

Conclusion:

In pharma perspective, digitalization of business promotes paperless culture. It radically changes the basic infrastructure of maintaining critical documents in the workplace. Digital document storage systems become the nerve center of information on the company. All data – strategic or related to operations – internally generated or acquired – right across all critical functional areas, such as IP, research, clinical trials, manufacturing, sales and marketing, finance, supply chain legal and even of the CEO’s office, find a space in this digital data sever.

Although, the benefits of digitalization are well known and much discussed, it has a contraposition, as well – related to the vulnerability of the system to cyber-attacks. This flags a demanding need for protection of digitally stored assets from cyber-attacks, or to frustrate even any misdemeanorfrom amateur hackers. Thus, creating an almost impregnable, well-firewalled digital data storage server assumes prime importance. Equally important is formulating and religiously implementing a robust digital policy for the same.

Creating strong awareness among employees and stakeholders regarding cybersecurity and involving them in tandem with a system-approach, sans an iota of complacency, is expected to mitigate such vulnerability, appreciably. Thus, a sense ofexigency for cybersecurity in the digitalized pharma world, I reckon, is very real.

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 Brand Building: Criticality of Enhancing End-To-End Customer Experience

Posted on by
Reply

In today’s fast-changing world, the types of medicines being developed, the way technology contributes to health, and how the value of health care is calculated, are all undergoing a metamorphosis. A wave of cell and gene therapies are bending the definition of what constitutes a drug, both clinically, and in terms of expectations of outcomes, duration of treatment and costs. Global health is poised to meet a series of key turning points, and changes seen in 2018 will mark the key inflections that drive the outlook for the next five years and beyond.

These are examples of key observations, as captured in the March 13, 2018 research report, titled: “2018 and Beyond: Outlook and Turning Points,” of the IQVIA Institute (previously IMS Institute). Arising out of these, the report envisages the following key impacts on the pharma industry in the next five years – from 2018 to 2022:

  • Patent expiry impact will be 37 percent larger than the prior five years, including both small molecule and biologics.
  • New medicines’ growth will be slower in 2018 – 2022 than the period from 2013 -2017.
  • Net price levels for branded drugs will rise modestly in the United States at 2–5% per year but will fall in other developed markets.
  • Volume for existing branded and generic medicines will remain slow, with the ongoing shifts towards newer medicines over time.
  • To increase access to medicinesGovernment and other payers to focus on addressing outstanding healthcare disparities or to invest in approaches to address system inefficiencies.

Such a situation, would obviously impede performance and productivity of many pharma players – both research-based and also the generic ones, across the world, including India. Against this backdrop, I shall discuss about the criticality of ‘enhancing end-to-end customer experience’ in pharma brand building exercise. The words to specially take note of are – ‘end-to-end customer experience’ and not just in some ‘touchpoints’. This would help many pharma players to navigate through this strong headwind to remain in the organizational growth trajectory.

Not a solitary finding:

Another series of articles from Bain & Company, published on June 30, 2015, May 25, 2017, May 09 and May 23, 2018, not just reflect similar core concern, as articulated in the IQVIA article. Moreover, the barriers to deliver growth from the in-market portfolios being tough, many drug companies are using even steep price increases as a key lever to achieve their financial goals. It continues to happen, despite strong criticisms both from the public and some powerful governments, such as the United States and also India, further denting industry’s public reputation.

Pharma sales reps no longer a primary learning resource about medicines?

It also came out clearly from some of these articles that ‘doctors in many developed countries have been moving away from pharma sales representatives as a primary resource for learning about medicines.’ It’s just a matter of time, I reckon, similar situation will prevail in India. So, what do the pharma organizations do now – wait for a similar situation to arise and then act, or initiate a proactive strategic marketing process, as soon as possible?

Enhancing customer experience in pharma brand building:

To mitigate this, a new concept for improving market share is gaining ground. It suggests, the intrinsic value of a brand, and its value delivery system should enhance the customer experience during the entire treatment process with the drug. Achieving this would prompt widely capturing and in-depth analysis of targeted customer expectations, preferences and aversions. Just listening to a patient or a doctor won’t suffice, any longer, for a pharma company to succeed in business.

The February 24, 2017 article, titled “The Case For Managing By Customer Episode,” published in Forbes very aptly said, ‘companies that once relied on developing new product features and improving customer service increasingly see competitive advantage rooted in the entire experience that’s wrapped around the product.’

The same point has been corroborated in several research studies, since the last few years. For example, a 2014 survey by McKinsey & Company came out with some interesting findings. It highlighted, by optimizing customer experience at every ‘touchpoint’ – ensuring a reasonably seamless customer journey, a company can potentially increase its revenue by up to 15 percent and lower the customer service costs by 20 percent.

Another research article dated May 23, 2018, titled ‘Why “Episodes” Matter for Doctors’, published in the Pharmaceutical Executive finds that about 40 percent of a doctor’s drug recommendations are linked to how effectively a firm delivers an overall experience, as distinct from product-related attributes such as clinical data. This share rises to about 60 percent for factors within the control of the commercial organization. Doctors who give high marks for their experience with a company, are between 2.3 and 2.7 times more likely to prescribe the company’s products as those who give low marks.The authors further highlighted, loyalty scores run low, both for the average firm and for many individual episodes for the pharma industry as a whole. That’s because firms have focused mostly on pushing out sales and marketing messages through as many channels as possible.

Units of ‘customer experience’ management:

Different publications acknowledge the need to have some key unit for managing customer experience. These units are described in different names by different experts, such as ‘episode’ or ‘touchpoint’.

Bain & Company said, each ‘Episode’ covers all tasks that a customer requires to complete for fulfilling a need. For each unit of ‘episode’, the clock starts as a customer feels and identifies a related need and ends when these are met with his/her full satisfaction. ‘The sum of a customer’s episodes over time comprise the entire experience of dealing with the company.’ So far as ‘Touchpoints’ are concerned, according to  McKinsey & Company, these are the individual transactions through which customers interact with parts of the business and its offerings. It reflects organization’s accountability and is relatively easy to build into operations.

Difference between ‘episode’ and ‘touchpoint’ in ‘customer experience’ management:

There is a difference between ‘episodes’ and ‘touchpoints’. Whereas ‘touchpoints’ are each point of contact or interaction, between a business and its customers,‘episodes’ focus on end-to-end design of a specific customer-need of an organization, as they align management and the front line around the customer experience.

Many companies believe that customers will be happy with the interaction when they connect with their product, customer service, sales staff, or marketing materials. However, McKinsey found that this siloed focus on individual touchpoints misses the bigger, and more important picture: the customer’s end-to-end experience or the ‘customer journey.’ It includes many things that happen before, during, and after the experience of a product or service. The companies providing the customer with the best experience from start to finish along the journey can expect to enhance customer satisfaction, improve sales and retention, reduce end-to-end service cost, and strengthen employee satisfaction.

Thus, only by looking at the customer’s experience through his or her own eyes, throughout the entire journey taken – a company can begin to understand how to meaningfully improve its performance.

Focus areas to create an exemplary customer experience:

According to Bain & Company there are 5 imperatives to focus on to create an exemplary customer experience, which I summarize, as follows:

  • Examine the experience from the outside in – from the customer’s point of view, not the organization’s structure and processes.
  • Meet customer expectations consistently.
  • Invest to provide outstanding experiences in the areas that have the greatest impact on customer advocacy.
  • Use rapid prototypes to deliver new services to customers.
  • Develop closed-loop feedback processes, continuously refining experiences to match or exceed ever-rising customer expectations.

Conclusion:

The mediocre performance of the pharma industry, especially, since the last few years, is bothering many stakeholders.The challenges to deliver business growth from in-market portfolios, coupled with frequent backlashes for using steep product price increase as a key lever to achieve financial goals, are some of the key causal factors.

Enhancing ‘customer experience’ in the process of pharma brand building initiatives, has also caught the imagination of some players. This is commendable. Nonetheless, several research studies indicate, if these are focused on individual customer-‘touchpoint’ based strategies, which, I reckon, is rather common, the outcome may remain quite far from expectations.

What really matters, is enhancing end-to-end experience with a brand – throughout a patient’s journey for disease prevention or effective treatment or even cure. This may, for example, begin with the search for effective and affordable treatment options – participating in arriving at the right treatment – prescription of right drugs, and finally receiving continuous requisite guidance throughout the course of treatment for better management of the disease or effective cure. Thus, pharma brand building by enhancing end-to-end ‘customer experience’, now assumes a critical strategic dimension.

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 Stakeholder Sentiment: Back to Square One?

Posted on by
Reply

Is it fair to push out the core purpose of an important process, or rather a mission, unfairly? Whether we like it or not, it happened that way, over a period of time.

Way back on December 01, 1950, George W. Merck (President and Chairman Merck & Co., Inc.1925-1957), epitomized the core purpose of the drug innovation process. This is something, which apparently was possible only for him to articulate exactly the way he did.

On that day, while addressing the students and the faculty at the Medical College of Virginia, Richmond, George Merck said: “We try to remember that medicine is for the patient. We try never to forget that medicine is for the people. It is not for the profits. The profits follow, and if we have remembered that, they have never failed to appear. The better we have remembered it, the larger they have been.”

To many of us, it may sound more as an altruistic statement, and not really coming from a businessman who wants to excel in the financial performance of the organization. Interestingly, that was not the case, either. Merck removed any possible ambiguity in his statement by stating categorically: “In doing this, it will be as a business­ man associated with that area of the chemical industry which serves chiefly the worlds of medicine and pharmacy.”

In this article, I shall deliberate on whether or not the core purpose of drug innovation, as articulated by George Merck in 1950 has been pushed out of the mind of the stakeholders for good.

Management Guru – Peter Drucker’s similar observation:

It is worthwhile to recapitulate at this stage that around the same time, the Management Guru – Peter Drucker also made a similar observation, which is relevant even today. He said: “Because the purpose of business is to create a customer, the business enterprise has two – and only two basic functions: marketing and innovation. Marketing and innovation produce results; all the rest are costs. Marketing is the distinguishing, unique function of the business.”

Interestingly, when the word ‘customer’ is replaced with ‘patients’, George W. Merck’s iconic statement fits so well even in the realm of business management, including drugs and pharmaceuticals.

Signs of the core purpose of new drug discovery getting pushed out:

The core purpose of new drug innovation in pharma business, as articulated by a top industry pioneer – ‘Medicine is for the patient and not for the profits’, was pushed out eventually, regardless of its reasons. Today’s core purpose of the same process has seemingly become just the opposite of that – ‘Medicine is only for the patient who can afford it – to maximize profit.’

This change in the core purpose was visible in a large number of instances. For example, when the then Bayer CEO Marijn Dekkers reportedly said: ‘Our cancer drug is for rich westerners, not poor Indians.’  However, his exact wordings were “we did not develop this product for the Indian market, let’s be honest. We developed this product for Western patients who can afford this product, quite honestly.” If so,the question that comes up: why then Bayer fought so hard and spent so much of money, efforts and time to keep selling this specific product in India – exclusively?

In any case, this statement from the highest echelon of one of the top global pharma players is a contentious one, especially against George Merck’s articulation, or even Peter Drucker’s for that matter, on the same. By the way, Dekkers made this commentat the Financial Times Global Pharmaceutical & Biotech Conference in December in December 2013.

A wind of change?

The hope for a wind of change flickered when in an interview, Andrew Witty,the erstwhile global CEO of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), signaled a totally contrasting view of his company. Witty said: “GSK is committed to offering all its new drugs in India at affordable prices.”

Much prior to this, on March 14, 2013 he told a conference on healthcare in London that: “It’s not unrealistic to expect that new innovation ought to be priced at or below, in some cases, the prices that have pre-existed them.” He further expressed: “The pharmaceutical industry should be able to charge less for new drugs in future by passing on efficiencies in research and development to its customers.”

Witty era is also over now. He retired from GSK at the age of around 53 on March 31, 2017. Perhaps his refreshing patient-centric thoughts would also not find any takers within the industry. Nonetheless, in March 2018, the same issue resurfaced in an interesting article, followed by a few other related developments.

Call for socializing drug development?

The issue, which is not just limited to high prices for new patented drugs, is much broader. An interesting article titled, “Developing drugs wasn’t always about profit, and it shouldn’t be now”, was published in Quartz- a news website owned by Atlantic Media, brings to the fore the same key point, yet again. It makes some profound observations, such as socializing drug development. The word ‘socializing’ may not be quite acceptable to many, though. Nevertheless, it raises some critical issues worth pondering over, such as:

  • Faith in the power of money pervades our modern medical system. Pharmaceutical companies aren’t evil (usually). They just choose to make the most profitable drugs, not the drugs of greatest value to society.
  • For example, despite antimicrobial resistance being a global threat, pharma companies have largely abandoned new antibiotic development on the eminently sensible principle that they are money-losers. Promising narrow-spectrum antibiotics – agents that precisely target pathogens and spare “good” bacteria - languish in development limbo because there is no hope that they might churn as much profit as several other drugs.

It’s high time, I reckon, to adequately address the dire need for a reliable supply of the medicines that make a vibrant modern society possible. All stakeholders, including the pharma industry, globally, would require putting their heads together in charting out a clear and time bound pathway for its effective resolution, soon. Otherwise, sheer gravity and the complexity of the situation may prompt the policy makers to move towards ‘socializing drug development,’ much to the dismay of many of us.

Hospitals creating nonprofit generic drug company:

On January 18, 2018, The New York Times (NYT), published an article titled “Fed Up With Drug Companies, Hospitals Decide to Start Their Own,” highlighted a novel initiative to address the prevailing situation, in their own way, without depending on others.

It reported, for many years, several hospital administrations have been expressing frustration when essential drugs like heart medicines have become scarce, or when prices have skyrocketed because investors manipulated the market. Now, about 300 of the country’s largest hospital systems are taking an aggressive step to combat the problem. They plan to go into the drug business themselves, in a move that appears to be the first on this scale.

‘The idea is to directly challenge the host of industry players who have capitalized on certain markets, buying up monopolies of old, off-patent drugs and then sharply raising prices, stoking public outrage’, the article elaborates.

‘Price of medications has soared, so have pharma profits’:

‘Big Pharma is jacking up prices for one reason – because it can,’ says a CNN Article, published on April 04, 2018. The article further emphasizes: “As the price of medications has soared, so have pharmaceutical company profits. Total sales revenue for top brand-name drugs jumped by almost $8.5 billion over the last five years. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that 67% of drug manufacturers boosted their annual profit margins between 2006 and 2015 – with profit margins up to 20% for some companies in certain years.”

It further writes, “Not only have pharmaceutical companies reaped outsized profits from these price hikes, so have their CEOs. According to a USA Today analysis, the median compensation package for biotech and pharmaceutical CEOs in the Standard & Poor’s 500 was 71% higher than the median compensation for S&P 500 executives in all industries in 2015.”

Conclusion:

This is happening the world over. But its degree varies. In those countries where there are drug price regulators, only a small percentage of the total pharma market by value comes under price regulation, the rest of the products enjoy virtually free pricing freedom.

Would this ground situation change on its own any time soon? There is no specific answer to this question, yet. Moreover, there doesn’t seem to be none around in the pharma industry today with the stature and articulated vision like George Merck. He started from the very basic. Drawing the ‘square one’, he clearly defined the core purpose of discovery, manufacturing and marketing of medicines. Today’s pharma industry, by and large, seems to be charting in other newly drawn squares. Maximizing profit is now considered a key objective of achieving the core purpose – and not an outcome of achieving the core purpose of pharma business.

However, there are some very early signs of several stakeholders’ sentiment changing in this regard. Are they moving back to the basic – square one?

From the chronicles of the past several years on this issue, pharma industry does not seem to be on the same page with those stakeholders, just yet. If they do, a humongous health worry of a vast majority of the global population could be effectively addressed, as many believe.

The reverberations of this sentiment, though rather faint, can be felt in many countries, including the United States, and not just in the developing world, such as India.

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.

Organic and Inorganic Growth Strategy For Sustainable Business Excellence

Posted on by
Reply

For an enthusiast, witnessing any organization growing consistently, is indeed exhilarating. This becomes even more interesting at a time when challenges and frequent surprises in the business environment become a new normal. A robust short, medium and long growth strategy turns out to be a necessity for sustaining the business excellence over a long period of time. This is applicable even to the pharma players in India.

The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of an organization usually assumes the role of chief architect of this strategy, which needs to be subsequently approved by the Board of Directors of the company concerned, collectively. The Board holds the CEO, who ultimately carries the can, accountable to deliver the deliverables in creating the desired shareholder value.

Two basic types of growth strategies:

Based on the CEO’s own experience, and also considering the expectations of the Board of Directors, together with the investors, the CEO opts for either of these two following types of basic growth strategies, or a mix of these two in varying proportions:

  • Organic growth: Growing the business through company’s own pursued activities, or all growth strategies sans Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) or by any other means not external to the organization.
  • Inorganic growth: Growing the business through M&A or takeovers.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with either of these two types of basic growth strategies, or their mix in varying proportions. Nevertheless, it is generally believed that with the basic ‘Organic’ growth plan, the companies, or rather their CEOs have a greater degree of sustainable control in various critical areas. These often include, retaining senior management focus on the organizational core strength for sustainable excellence, or even maintaining the organizational culture and people management style, without any possible conflict in these areas.

In this article, I shall explore different aspects of these two basic growth strategies for sustainable business excellence. To illustrate the point better, I shall draw upon examples from two large but contrasting pharma companies. Let me begin this discussion with the following question:

When does a company choose predominantly inorganic growth path?

Its answer has been well articulated in an article of the Harvard Business Review (HBR). It says: “High-growth companies become low growth all the time. Many CEOs accept that as an inevitable sign that their businesses have matured, and so they stop looking internally for big growth. Instead, they become serial acquirers of smaller companies or seek a transformative acquisition of another large business, preferably a high-growth one.”

That said, none can deny that the short to medium term growth of a company following M&A is much faster and its market share and size become much larger than any comparable organizations pursuing the ‘Organic Growth’ path. Thus, more often than not, such initiatives create a ‘domino effect’, especially in the pharma industry, across the world.

Inorganic growth and key management challenges:

The short and medium-term boost in organizational performance post M&A, comes with its complexities in meeting similar expectations of the Company Board, shareholders and the investors, over a long period of time. This is besides all other accompanying issues, such as people related and more importantly in setting the future direction of the company. The cumulative impact of all this, propels the CEO to go all out for a similar buying spree. When it doesn’t materialize, as was expected, both the Board and the CEO are caught in a catch 22 situation. As mentioned earlier, I shall illustrate this point, with the following recent example covering some important areas.

The examples:

“Please don’t go, Ian Read. That’s the message Pfizer’s board of directors has made loud and clear to the almost-65-year-old CEO, who could very well retire with a $15.7 million pension package.” This is what appeared in an international media report on March 16, 2018.

Analyzing the current challenges faced by the company, the media report interpreted the indispensability of Ian Read in an interesting way. It reported: “The pharma giant considers Read the most qualified person to steer the company through a host of challenges, from oncology trial disappointments to investor pressure to make a big acquisition.” Investors are also, reportedly, sending clear signals to the CEO about the tough road ahead.

Thus, Ian Read “who turns 65 in May, also must remain CEO through at least next March and not work for a competitor for a minimum of two years after that to be eligible,” reported Bloomberg on March 16, 2018. It is interesting to note at this point that Mr. Read has been the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Pfizer – the world’s largest pharmaceutical company, since 2010.

A different CEO rated as ‘Top Performing’ pharma leader:

Pfizer CEO’s ‘exemplary leadership and vision’, has been captured in the Proxy Statement by the Independent Directors on the Board of the Company. However, Harvard Business Review (HBR) in its 2016 pan-industry ranking of the “best-performing” CEOs in the world, featured Lars Rebien Sorensen – the then outgoing CEO of Novo Nordisk. He topped the list for the second successive year. Sorensen achieved this distinction ‘Mostly, for his role overseeing astonishing returns for shareholders and market capitalization growth.’ All the CEOs were, reportedly, evaluated by HBR on a variety of financial, environmental, social, and governance metrics.

Interestingly, in the 2017 HBR list for the same, when the Novo Nordisk CEO was out of the race, no pharma CEO could achieve this distinction or even a place in the top 10. Pablo Isla of Inditex (Spanish clothing retailer), Martin Sorrell of WPP (PR major in the UK) and Jensen Huang of NVIDIA (American technology company occupied the number 1, 2 and 3 spots, respectively.

Two interesting leadership examples:

I shall not delve into any judgmental interpretations on any aspect of leadership by comparing the Pfizer CEO with his counterpart in Novo Nordisk. Nevertheless, one hard fact cannot be ignored. The accomplishments of Pfizer CEO were evaluated by its own Board and were rated outstanding. Whereas, in case of Novo Nordisk CEO, besides the company’s own Board, his performance evaluation was done by the outside independent experts on the HBR panel.

Was there any difference in their growth strategy?

Possibly yes. There seems to be, at least, one a key difference in the ‘growth strategy’ of these two large pharma players.

  • Novo Nordisk is primarily driven by ‘Organic growth’ with a focused product portfolio on predominantly diabetes disease area, besides hemophilia, growth disorders and obesity. This has been well captured in the company’s statement on February 6, 2017 where it says: “Organic growth enables steady cash returns to shareholders via dividends and share repurchase programs” and is driven by its Insulin portfolio.
  • Whereas, Pfizer, though in earlier days followed an ‘organic’ growth path, subsequently changed to ‘Inorganic Growth’ route. Pfizer’s mega acquisitions, in its quest for faster growth to be the world’s largest pharma player, include Warner Lambert (2000), Pharmacia (2002) and Wyeth (2009). The key purpose of these acquisitions appears to expand into a diversified product portfolio of blockbuster drugs.

Pfizer did contemplate changing course:

In 2010, barely two weeks on the job of CEO, Pfizer Inc., Ian Read indicated breaking up the company into two core businesses. However, after six years of meticulous planning, on September 26, 2016, the company announced: “After an extensive evaluation, the company’s Board of Directors and Executive Leadership Team have determined the company is best positioned to maximize future shareholder value creation in its current structure and will not pursue splitting Pfizer Innovative Health and Pfizer Essential Health into two, separate publicly traded companies at this time.”

Sustained value creation following the same path not easy:

After the decision to operate as one company and consolidate the business pursuing similar ‘Inorganic Growth’ strategy, Pfizer went ahead full throttle to acquire AstraZeneca for USD119 billion. But, on May 19, 2014, AstraZeneca Board rejected it. Again, on April 05, 2017, Reuters reported, “Pfizer Inc. agreed on Tuesday to terminate its $160 billion agreement to acquire Botox maker Allergan Plc, in a major victory to U.S. President Barack Obama’s drive to stop tax-dodging corporate mergers.”

Apparently, the current Pfizer CEO is now expected to finish his unfinished agenda, at least for the short to medium term, as the current blockbuster drugs continue losing the steam.

Conclusion:

It’s a common belief that slowing down of a company’s business performance is a compelling reason for its switch from the ‘Organic’ to ‘Inorganic’ growth strategy. The new CEO of Novo Nordisk – Lars Fruergaard Jorgensen also appears to subscribe to this view. While, reportedly, including negative growth at the low end in constant currencies in its guidance for 2017, Jorgensen apparently, confided that M&A will now be a part of the company’s growth search.

On facing a similar situation, the above HBR article suggested the CEOs to fight the short-term pressures of the business cycle of moving away from the ‘Organic’ growth path. This can be overcome by various means, as good ideas for organic growth can always attract required resources and support.

While choosing an appropriate basic growth strategy for the organization – ‘Organic’ or ‘Inorganic’, the CEO’s focus should be on what is best for sustainable and long-term business performance, without being trapped by the prevailing circumstances. Thus, addressing the internal causative factors, effectively, would likely to be a better idea in resolving the issue of a sustainable business performance. This is regardless of the underlying reasons, such as gradually drying up the new product pipeline while blockbuster drugs are going off patent, or due to several other different reasons.

Nevertheless, in the balance of probability, ‘Organic’ growth strategy appears to be less complex and is fraught with lower business risks and uncertainties. Consequently, it reflects a greater likelihood of sustainable achievements for the CEO, and in tandem, a long-term financial reward for the shareholders, investors, and finally the organization as a whole.

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.

SCM: Embracing Technology For Patients’ Safety

Posted on by
Reply

Supply Chain Management (SCM) in the pharma industry is generally perceived as a logistic function, just in most other industries, involving the distribution of medicines from manufacturing plants, right up to pharma distributors. Thereafter, it becomes the responsibility of the respective distributors to reach these to the wholesalers, who cater to the needs and demand of retail chemists.

In tandem, pharma SCM is also playing a key role in reducing overall cost of drugs, improving the profit margin, and to some extent their affordability to a larger number of patients. This process involves efficient procurement of right products of the right quality, transporting them in the right condition, delivering them at the right location in right time, with optimal inventory carrying cost.

That said, today’s reality demands the SCM to cover much larger space. This calls for taking in its fold even those critical parameters that go beyond the realm of business performance – protecting the health and safety interests of patients, effectively. In that sense, SCM plays a pivotal role pharma business operation, having a potential to make a profound impact in the lives of many, quietly.

Coming out of the cocoon of narrowly defined distribution or logistic functions, pharma SCM, in many countries, has started rediscovering itself, as a multi-dimensional and multi-factorial business necessity, keeping patients within its core focus area, always.

I wrote on ‘The importance of Supply Chain Integrity’ and ‘Maximizing value of a new product launch with an innovative Supply Chain Management System’ in this blog on November 29, 2010 and August 30, 2010, respectively. Thus, in this article, I shall dwell on the role of pharma SCM in ensuring patients’ health and safety, embracing modern technology.

Current concerns:

Gradual transformation of SCM with high-tech interventions is visible now, but in a sporadic way. Speedy development initiatives in this area need to be more inclusive, everywhere. This is a paramount requirement of the pharma business, that has been prompted by serious breaches in the SCM process, affecting patients’ health, safety and security, besides impacting the brand image.

Manifestations of these get reflected in the instances like, availability of substandard and counterfeit drugs, or large product recalls, or quality issues with APIs and excipients escaping SCM scrutiny.

W.H.O says, it’s now all-pervasive:

The availability of substandard and falsified medical products, although is a menace to the society, seems to be all pervasive. The November 2017, Fact Sheet of the World Health Organization (W.H.O) recognizes this fact. The paper categorically states that no country has remained untouched by this issue – from North America and Europe to sub-Saharan Africa, South East Asia, and Latin America. Thus, this hazard, once considered a problem limited to developing and low-income countries, is no longer so.

The leading factors: ‘poor governance and weak technical capacity’:

The W.H.O study titled “Public health and socioeconomic impact of substandard and falsified medical products” released in November 2017 invited rather embarrassing media headlines, such as “India among countries where 10% of drugs are substandard.” Some of the most common medicines consumed in India, such as Combiflam and D-Cold were also found as sub-standard by Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) – as this news item reports.

Commenting on the possible reasons for this menace, W.H.O underscored that such substandard and falsified medical products are most likely to reach patients in 3 important situations. These are, constrained access to high quality and safe medical products, poor governance, and weak technical capacity.

The most important and viable option to effectively address this drug-safety threats is innovative applications of state of the art technology platforms. Many pharma players, are gradually realizing it through experience. Quite in unison, various Governments, India included, are also contemplating to follow the same path. Some nations are enacting robust laws for strict compliance of the remedial measures, as charted out by the respective drug authorities.

Harnessing technology as an enabler:

I reckon, harnessing modern technology will facilitate putting in place a robust ‘Track and Trace’ in the SCM, through product ‘serialization’, to effectively address this menace. As many would know, pharma serialization broadly means that each medicinal product pack will carry a Unique Identifier (UID), that can be tracked and traced till the same reaches the end-user.

The process may start with the key ‘touch points’ of a drug before it reaches the patients, such as suppliers, formulators, carrying and forwarding agents (C&FA) or distributors, wholesalers and retailers. This can be extended backwards, as well, to make the drug-sourcing process safer, which is also of crucial importance.

Leveraging technology for patient safety:

Realizing the importance of drug-safety needs of patients, many drug regulators, even in the developed markets, are leveraging technology as a key enabler in the SCM value chain to effectively address this issue. There are several recent global examples of achieving this specific objective. One such example comes from the top pharma market in the world – the United States.

Where the ‘Track and Trace System’ came as a law:

To ensure greater drug-safety for patients in the country, the oldest democracy of the world decided to introduce the ‘Track and Trace System’ in the SCM process by enacting a robust law. Accordingly, in December 2016, the US-FDA released the final guidance on the implementation of the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA).

Under this law an electronic ‘Track and Trace System’, through product ‘serialization’, will be put in place in the United States. As reported in the ‘Pharmacy Times’, DSCSA comes into force to regulate transactions between dispensers, pharmacies, and also among manufacturers, repackagers, wholesale distributors, third-party logistics providers, and trading partners, from November 24, 2017.

Following DSCSA, on June 30, 2017, the agency issued a draft guidance for the industry, titled Product Identifier Requirements Under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act – Compliance Policy. It informed the manufacturers and other supply chain stakeholders that “although manufacturers are to begin including a ‘product identifier’ on prescription drug packages and cases on November 27, 2017, the FDA is delaying enforcement of those requirements until November 2018 to provide manufacturers additional time and avoid supply disruptions.”

The US-FDA explains ‘product identifier’, as follows:

  • A unique identity for individual prescription drug packages and cases, which will allow trading partners to easily trace drug packages as they move through the supply chain.
  • Includes the product’s lot number, expiration date, a national drug code (or NDC), and a serial number. The serial number is different for each package or case. This creates a unique identifier – human and machine readable – to enable product tracing throughout the supply chain and enable all trading partners to better detect illegitimate products within the supply chain.

The US drug regulator clarified that the compliance policy outlined in the draft guidance applies solely to products without a product identifier that are introduced into commerce by a manufacturer between November 27, 2017 and November 26, 2018.

Several other countries also realizing its criticality:

Besides the United States, several other countries are harnessing high technology to make the SCM system more robust to ensure patient safety. Some of these include, EU, South Korea, Brazil and China, South Korea and Argentina. India too has initiated action in this area, but only for exports, as on date. Intriguingly, drug-safety for patients within the country doesn’t seem to be on the ‘must do’ list of the law and policy makers of the country, just yet.

‘Track and Trace’ system in India:

As stated above, the ‘Track and Trace’ system in India for drugs is currently applicable only to pharma exports. By a notification dated January 05, 2016, the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) made encoding and printing of unique numbers and bar codes as per GSI Global Standard mandatory. This would cover tertiary, secondary and primary packaging for all pharmaceuticals manufactured in India and exported out of the country to facilitate tracking and tracing.

However, for drugs in the domestic market, although a draft proposal was circulated to the stakeholders in June 2015, but no significant progress has yet been made on its implementation in India.

Conclusion:

Availability of potentially harmful substandard and counterfeit drugs is posing a threat to public health and safety, almost in all countries across the world, with a varying degree, though. The November 2017, Fact Sheet of the World Health Organization (W.H.O) also highlighted this issue with a great concern.

A robust SCM systems, built on modern technological platforms are now receiving encouragement from the Governments in many countries, to contain this menace. Accordingly, lawmakers are formulating tough laws, and the drug regulators are specifying the requirements that need to be built into the pharma SCM mechanism.

Some pharma players, on their own, are further raising this bar, while framing their internal compliance norms for SCM. They realize that besides responding to patients’ health and safety needs, it is necessary for the commercial consideration too, alongside the company’s reputation.

Although, India is included among those countries where 10 percent of drugs are substandard, as the W.H.O reports, no such regulatory mechanism has been made mandatory within the Supply Chain to cover drugs in the domestic market, as yet. Interestingly, the DGFT has made the ‘Track and Trace’ mechanism only for the exporters, probably for patients’ health safety of the importing countries! Neither has the majority of domestic pharma manufacturers voluntarily implemented it, demonstrating ‘Patient-Centricity’.

Making SCM robust, weaving into it the drug-safety needs of patients, is a necessity in India too. When a large number of countries, including BRICS nations, are embracing modern technology to achieve this goal, why isn’t India doing so – intriguing…No…?

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 Governance Maladies and Corporate Leadership

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

  • “The income tax (IT) investigation wing claims to have unearthed a nexus between a leading pharmaceutical company and doctors, and evidence showing payments running into Crores to the latter for prescribing the company’s medicines.”
  • Reaching out to Niti Aayog, Indian drug industry lobby groups, “mainly objected to three proposals in the draft policy floated last month: one drug one brand, curbing retailer margins, and mandatory bioavailability and bioequivalence (BA/BE) test for all drugs approved by state regulators and also future renewals.”

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

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

The major incident that snowballed:

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

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

The doctrine of ‘Maximizing Shareholder Value’:

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

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

The basic premises of the theory:

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

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

A flawed corporate governance model?

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

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

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

Providing a more realistic foundation for corporate governance:

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

  • Corporations are complex organizations whose effective functioning depend on talented leaders and managers.
  • Corporations can prosper over the long term only if they’re able to learn, adapt, and regularly transform themselves.
  • Corporations perform many functions in society – such as providing investment opportunities and generating wealth, producing goods and services, creating employment, developing technologies, paying taxes, and making several other significant contributions to the communities in which they operate.
  • Corporations may have differing objectives and strategies in this regard – such as, what the purpose of a corporation ought to be from a societal perspective may not be quite the same as what its promoters or key shareholders believe those to be.
  • Corporations must create value for multiple constituencies – such as, companies succeed only if customers want their products, employees want to work for them, suppliers want them as partners, shareholders want to buy their stock, and communities want their presence. In contrast, the ‘creating more shareholder value’ theory’s implied decision prompts that managers should always maximize value for shareholders – oversimplifies this challenge and leads eventually to systematic underinvestment in other important relationships.
  • Corporations must have ethical standards to guide interactions with all their constituencies, including shareholders and society at large – going beyond forbearance from fraud and collusion, is essential for earning the trust companies need to function effectively over time. ‘Creating more shareholder value’ theory’s ambivalence regarding corporate ethics can set companies up for destructive and even criminal behavior -which generates a need for the costly regulations that agency theory proponents are quick to decry.

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

The merits of ‘company-centered governance’:

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray 

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 Innovation Absolutely Critical: But NOT Shorn from Ethics, Propriety, Compliance and Values

Posted on by
Reply

Significant value added innovation is the bedrock of progress of the pharmaceutical industry and is essential for the patients. This is a hard fact.

However, this current buzzword – ‘innovation’ can in no way be shorn from soft business necessities like, ethics, propriety, compliance and values… not just for longer term sustainability of business, but more in the larger interest of patients and patient groups.

Most importantly, ‘ethics, propriety, compliance and values’ are not meant for mere display  in the corporate websites like, any other business showpieces. These should neither be leveraged to create a false positive impression in the minds of the stakeholders with frequent PR blitzkriegs.

The creators of these soft ‘X factors’ are now being increasingly hauled up for gross violations of the same by the Governments in various parts of the world .These are not just legal issues. The net impact of all such acts goes much beyond.

In this article, I shall deliberate on these continuing and annoying issues both in global and local perspectives, quoting relevant examples at random.

The sole purpose of my argument is to drive home that all such repeated gross violations, as reported in the media, go against patients’ interests, directly or indirectly. None of these incidents, in any way, can be negated with stories of great innovations or with any other make of craftily designed shields.

Under increasing scrutiny in the developed world:

Ethics, propriety and business value standards of big pharma, besides various types of legal compliance, are coming under increasing stakeholders’ scrutiny, especially in the developed markets of the world.

Very frequently media reports from across the world, highlight serous indictments of the Government and even judiciary for bribery, corrupt business practices and other unbecoming conduct, aimed at the the global mascot for healthcare.

It is indeed flabbergasting to note that more and more corporates, with all guns blazing at the same time, publicize with equal zest various initiatives being taken by them to uphold high ethical standards and business practices, if not propriety, as the juggernaut keeps on moving forward, unabated.

The scope of ‘ethics and propriety’:

The scope of ‘ethical business conducts, propriety and value standards’ of a company usually encompasses the following, among many others:

  • The employees, suppliers, customers and other stakeholders
  • Caring for the society and environment
  • Fiduciary responsibilities
  • Business and marketing practices
  • R&D activities, including clinical trials
  • Corporate Governance
  • Corporate espionage

That said, such scope should not be restricted to the top management, but must be allowed to percolate downwards in a structured manner, looking beyond the legal and regulatory boundaries.

Statistics of compliance to ‘codes of business ethics and corporate values’ are important to know, but the qualitative change in the ethics and value standards of an organization should always be the most important goal to drive any corporation and the pharmaceutical sector is no exception.

‘Business Ethics and Values’ in the globalized economy:

Globalization of business makes the process of formulating the ‘codes of ethics and values’ indeed very challenging for many organizations in many ways. This is mainly because, the cultural differences at times create a conflict on ethics and values involving different countries.

For this purpose, many business organizations prefer to interact with the cultural and religious leaders in the foreign countries, mainly to ascertain what really drives culturally diverse people to act in certain ways.

With the wealth of knowledge of the local customs and people, the cultural and religious leaders can help an organization to unify the code of ethics and values of the globalized business.

Such leaders can also help identifying the ‘common meeting ground of minds’ from a specific country perspective, after carefully assessing the cultural differences, which are difficult to resolve in the near term.

The ‘common meeting ground of minds’ within a given society, thus worked out, could form the bedrock to initiate further steps to strengthen global business standards of ethics and values of an organization.

OECD with USA started early enacting ‘Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)’: 

To prevent bribery and corrupt practices, especially in a foreign land, in 1997, along with 33 other countries belonging to the ‘Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)’, the United States Congress enacted a law against the bribery of foreign officials, which is known as ‘Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)’.

This Act marked the early beginnings of ethical compliance program in the United States and disallows the US companies from paying, offering to pay or authorizing to pay money or anything of value either directly or through third parties or middlemen. FCPA currently has significant impact on the way American companies are required to run their business, especially in the foreign land.

A dichotomy exists with ‘Grease Payment’:

OECD classified ‘Grease payment’ as “facilitating one, if it is paid to government employees to speed up an administrative process where the outcome is already pre-determined.”

In the FCPA of the US, ‘Grease Payment’, has been defined as “a payment to a foreign official, political party or party official for ‘routine governmental action,’ such as processing papers, issuing permits, and other actions of an official, in order to expedite performance of duties of non-discretionary nature, i.e., which they are already bound to perform. The payment is not intended to influence the outcome of the official’s action, only its timing.”

Many observers opine, ‘Grease Payments’ is an absolute dichotomy to the overall US policy for ethical standards and against corruption.

Currently besides US, only Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea are the countries that permit ‘Grease payments’.

Notwithstanding, the governments of the US and four other countries allow companies to keep doing business without undue delay by making ‘Grease Payments’ to the lower government officials, such payments are considered illegal in most other countries, in which they are paid, including India.

In India such a business practice is viewed as bribery, which is not only perceived as unethical and immoral, but also a criminal offense under the law of the land. Even otherwise, right or wrong, ‘Grease Payments’ are viewed by a vast majority of the population as a morally questionable standard of ‘business conduct’.

Many companies are setting-up the ethical business standards globally:

While visiting the website of especially the large global and local companies, one finds that all these companies, barring a very few exceptions, have already put in place a comprehensive ‘code of business ethics and values’. Some of these companies have also put in place dedicated code compliance officers across the globe.

‘Practice as you preach’:

Despite all these commendable initiatives towards establishing corporate codes of business ethics and values, the moot question that keeps haunting many times and again: “Do all these companies ‘practice what they preach’ in real life?”

Instances are too many for breach in ethics, propriety and value standards:

The media is now increasingly reporting such instances of violations both locally and globally.

Some Indian examples: (At random, not in a chronological order)

Criminal drug regulatory manipulation:

One of India’s top pharma players reportedly will pay a record fine of US$ 500 million in the US for lying to officials and selling badly made generic drugs.

The company has pleaded guilty to improper manufacturing, storing and testing of drugs, closing a year long civil and criminal investigation into the matter.

Compensation for deaths related to Clinical Trials not paid:

In 2011 the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) reportedly summoned nine pharma companies on June 6 to question them on the amount of compensation they have decided to pay the ‘victims of their clinical trials’, which is a mandatory part of any clinical trial, or else all other trials of these nine companies going on at that time or yet to start, will not be allowed.

Clinical Trial is another area of pharmaceutical business, especially in the Indian context, where more often than not, issues related to ethics and values are being raised. In an article titled, ‘Clinical trials in India: ethical concerns’ published by the World Health Organization (WHO) following observations have been made:

“The latest developments in India reflect a concerted effort on the part of the global public health community to push clinical trials issues to the fore in the wake of several high-profile cases in which pharmaceutical companies were shown to be withholding information from regulators.”

Alleged marketing malpractices:

In 2010, the Parliamentary Standing committee on Health reportedly expressed concern that the “evil practice” of inducement of doctors by the pharma players continues.

Congress MP Jyoti Mirdha sent a bunch of photocopies of air tickets to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to claim that doctors and their families were ‘beating the scorching Indian summer’ with a trip to England and Scotland, courtesy a pharmaceutical company.

30 family members of 11 doctors from all over the country reportedly enjoyed the hospitality of the concerned company.

Department of Pharmaceuticals reportedly roped in the Revenue Department under Finance Ministry to work out methods to link the money trail to offending companies.

Some global examples: (At random, not in a chronological order)

United States Government sues a Swiss pharma major for alleged multi-million dollar kickbacks:

The United States Government very recently reportedly announced its second civil fraud lawsuit against a Swiss drug major accusing the company of paying multimillion-dollar kickbacks to doctors in exchange for prescribing its drugs.

Fraud fines: 

Two largest drug makers of the world reportedly paid US$ 8 billion in fraud fines for repeatedly defrauding Medicare and Medicaid in the USA over the past decade.

Denigrating generics:

Another global pharma major reportedly has been recently fined US$ 52.8 million for denigrating generic copies.

Drug overcharging: 

Another global drug major reportedly stirred an ethics scandal and paid US$ 499 million towards overcharging the US government for medicines.

Bribing doctors:

  • A top global pharma player reportedly paid total US$ 60.2 million to settle a federal investigation on alleged bribing overseas doctors and other health officials to prescribe medicines. 
  • Another European pharma group reportedly was fined US$ 3bn after admitting bribing doctors and encouraging the prescription of unsuitable antidepressants to children.

 Concealment of important facts:

A judge in USA reportedly ordered a large pharma company to pay more than $1.2 billion in fines after a jury found that the company had minimized or concealed the dangers associated with an antipsychotic drug.

Off-label marketing:

  • A Swiss pharma major reportedly agreed to pay US$ 422.5 million to resolve an investigation into alleged off-label promotion of a drug, as well as civil allegations relating to five other products.
  • The U.S. Justice Department reportedly hit an American drug major with a US$ 322 million penalty for illegally promoting a drug before it received approval by the Food and Drug Administration for that condition.

Other illegal marketing practices:

Yet another European pharma group was reportedly fined USD 34 million by a court in the United States for illegal marketing practices for its medicine.

‘Illegal’ Clinical Trials: 

It was revealed on May 17, 2013 that global pharmaceutical companies reportedly paid millions of pounds to former communist East Germany to use more that 50,000 patients in state-run hospitals as unwitting guinea pigs for drug tests in which several people died.

All these are some random examples of alleged malpractices associated with ‘ethics, propriety, compliance and values’ in the pharma world, both local and global.

Middle and lower management becomes the ‘fall guy’: 

It is interesting to note that whenever, such incidents take place, the fingers are usually pointed towards the middle or lower management cadre of the corporations concerned for violations and non-compliance.

Corporate or top management ownership of such seemingly deplorable incidents still remains confined within a ‘black box’ and probably a distant reality.

Public perception is not encouraging:

In the pharmaceutical sector all over the world, many business practices have still remained very contentious, despite many well-publicized attempts of self-regulation by the industry. The flow of complaints for alleged unethical business practices have not slowed down either, across the world, even after so many years of self-regulation, penalty and severe indictments.

Government apathy in India:

Nearer home, the Government apathy, despite being pressured by the respective Parliamentary Committees and sometimes including judiciary in repose to Public Interest Litigations (PIL), has indeed been appalling, thus far.

The Department of Pharmaceuticals of the Government of India has already circulated a draft ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’ for stakeholders to comment on it. The final UCPMP, when it comes into force, if not implemented by the pharmaceutical players in its ‘letter and spirit’, may attract government’s ire in form of strong doses of regulatory measures. However, the moot question remains, will the UCPMP come at all?

Similar issues are there in drug regulatory areas falling under the Ministry of Health, especially in the clinical trial area. In this matter, very fortunately Supreme Court has intervened against a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). Thus, one can expect to witness some tangible steps being taken in this area, sooner than later.

Walking the talk:

The need to formulate and more importantly effectively implement ‘Codes of Business Ethics & Values’ should gain increasing relevance in the globalized business environment, including in India.

It appears from the media reports, many companies across the world are increasingly resorting to ‘unethical behavior, impropriety and business malpractices’ due to intense pressure for business performance, as demanded primarily by the stock markets.

There is no global consensus, as yet, on what is ethically and morally acceptable ‘Business Ethics and Values’ across the world. However, even if these are implemented in a country-specific way, the most challenging obstacle to overcome by the corporates would still remain ‘walking the talk’ and owning responsibility at the top.

Conclusion:

Pharmaceutical innovation will continue to remain the launch pad for the industry growth in the battle against diseases of all types, forms and severity. However, that alone should in no way deserve to receive encouragement from any corner shorn from Ethics, Propriety, Compliance and Values.

Balancing pharmaceutical innovation with Ethics, Propriety, Compliance and Values, I reckon, will in turn help striking a right balance, to a considerable extent, between pharmaceutical innovation and public health interest for everyones’ satisfaction, mostly the patients.

Being equipped with the wherewithal to bring new drugs for the global population and being the fundamental source of growth momentum for the generic drug industry of the world, the innovator companies are expected to lead by setting examples in this area too. After all, as the saying goes:

“Caesar’s wife ought to be above suspicion. ‥Caesar himself ought to be so too”.

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.

 

 

Are Preventive Medicines always cost effective to be an area of focus in healthcare management?

Posted on by
Reply

American Board of Preventive Medicine defines ‘Preventive Medicine’ as follows:

“Preventive Medicine is the specialty of medical practice that focuses on the health of individuals, communities, and defined populations. Its goal is to protect, promote, and maintain health and well-being and to prevent disease, disability and death.”

The most basic examples of preventive medicines are known to be hand washing, breast feeding and immunization.

Simple preventive measures, such as, increasing awareness against tobacco smoking, misuse of alcohol or unprotected sex, especially in an emerging economy like India, will go a long way to prevent and control such habit related diseases, help saving significant expenditure of the nation towards healthcare.

The purpose:

The primary purpose of preventive medicines could well have dual objectives as follows:

  • Disease prevention of a large section of the population
  • Reduce the healthcare expenses

Primary, secondary and tertiary prevention:

As stated above, primary disease prevention usually would include vaccination against specific disease types, whereas secondary and tertiary prevention are usually done through early detection process and screening of the target population.

Relevance to chronic diseases:

A World Health Organization (WHO) report, titled, “Preventing Chronic diseases – a vital investment” argues that globally of the 58 million deaths in 2005, approximately 35 million were due to chronic diseases, which were expected to increase by 17% in the next 10 years thereafter.

It points out that 80% of all premature heart disease, stroke and diabetes are preventable. This assumes greater significance as 80% deaths due to chronic disease occur in low and middle income nations where most of the world population lives, against only 20% of the same in the high income countries.

The report, therefore, articulates that it is absolutely necessary for the countries to review and implement a comprehensive and integrated preventive public health strategy.

Regular preventive measures:

Experts recommend following regular preventive measures, which are very relevant to India:

  • Counseling on hygienic life style
  • Routine primary vaccinations
  • Counseling on quitting smoking, alcohol misuse, protected sex, losing weight, eating healthy food, treating depression etc.
  • Regular general health check-up
  • Cancer screenings like mammograms and colonoscopies

Immense potential in India:

In a country like India, with high prevalence of many preventable diseases involving a large section of the nation’s population, preventive medicine promises immense potential to reduce the healthcare expenditure of the country significantly and at the same time would promise a much better quality of life to its population.

A counter point:

Another school of thought, primarily US based, advocates that preventive medicines, on the contrary, would raise the healthcare expenditure.

  • Preventive Medicine increases healthcare cost:

In support of this contrarian view, a paper published in ‘The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM)’ on February 14, 2008 based on 599 studies between 2000 and 2005 infers that though disease prevention in some cases may reduce the cost of healthcare, more preventive medicines in many cases could, in fact, increase  the overall healthcare expenditure.

  • Screening cost is more than savings:

It says that screening cost of a disease for a large section of the population may far exceed the savings from treatment avoidance in those cases where only a small part of the population would have become ill in the absence of preventive measures.

  • Treatment with medicine offers greater value:

The article also points out that:

“The drugs used to treat high cholesterol yield much greater value for the money, if the targeted population is at high risk for coronary heart disease, and the efficiency of cancer screening can depend heavily on both the frequency of the screening and the level of cancer risk in the screened population.”

  • Preventive medicine more expensive:

The authors argue that preventive medicine will be more expensive where to make a small populations free from a particular disease, preventive measures are taken involving a large population, most of whom even otherwise would not have suffered from that illness.

Conclusion:

Coming back to the WHO report which categorically says, contrary to the belief of some section of the society, especially in the USA that measures for control and prevention of chronic diseases are really not too expensive for any nation, not even for the low and middle income countries.

In reality, even chronic diseases can be prevented and effectively controlled to reduce the disease burden of any country very significantly. The WHO article also says that expensive patented medicines are no longer required for prevention of, for example, even cardiac ailments. The cheaper generic drugs, if used along with counseling on life style changes, will be quite affordable to a vast majority of population even in the middle and low income countries.

Weighing all pros and cons, WHO aims to reduce the death rates from all chronic diseases by 2% per year through preventive medicines, which would mean prevention of 36 million deaths due to chronic disease by 2015, mostly in the low and middle income countries.

These statistics will more than vindicate the argument that preventive measures and medicines are cost effective, in the long run for any nation, particularly for a country like India.

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.