A Link To Ponder: Pharma Digitalization – Cyber Threats – Cyber Immunity

Posted on November 4, 2019 by Tapan Ray

Digitalization in the pharmaceutical industry – slowly but steadily, across its various domains, from drug discovery, clinical development, supply chain, sales and marketing to engage with various stakeholders, is a reality today. Consequently, the concept of data as a business asset, is fast taking the center stage, being the nerve center of the business. It encompasses, conceiving data requirement, generation of a massive pool of credible data accordingly, their analysis and finally – putting a robust data security system in place, against any kind of theft or misuse.

While digitalization of pharma business, helps transform the company to an all-time ready and an agile customer-centric business entity, with one ear always listening to customers to delight them with its deliverables. Conversely, the other ear is on its employees with a similar objective. This is a difficult task and mostly involves disruption of status-quo within the organization, but often produces game changing outcomes for the business, as is known to many.

Which is why, one sees a good number of people around, offering expert digital services for the pharma industry – along with a hope of a never before improvement in the future organizational performance. So far so good, but this transformation process also invites a huge technology-related threat to business – ‘Cyberthreat.’ In this article, I shall focus on the critical need of taking guard against this threat, as is often advised by all well-qualified domain experts. This risk is expected to increase further, as the technology keeps advancing.

Although, I had deliberated on Cybersecurity in my article, ‘Exigency of Cybersecurity in Digitalized Pharma,’ in a different context, before delving into the core point of today’s discussion, let us together try to recapitulate what does ‘Cyberthreat’ mean to us, in the real world.

Cyber-threat in the digitalized business:

Let me paraphrase, especially in context of the pharma industry, what the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) of the Government of the United States, has stated. It articulates, ‘Cybersecurity’ or ‘Cyber threats’ to a control system, refer to the attempts of unauthorized access to a control system device and/or network using a data communications pathway.

This access can be directed from within an organization by trusted users or from remote locations by unknown persons using the Internet. Threats to control systems can come from numerous sources, including disgruntled employees, and malicious intruders. To protect against these threats, it is necessary to create a secure cyber-barrier around the Industrial Control System (ICS).

Many sources indicate that the threat to cyber security in business, is often triggered to gain access to a company’s digital system to damage or steal data, or even to rattle its digital infrastructure for accomplishing a specific purpose.

Rapid digitalization in pharma may attract more cyber criminals:

According to a senior official of Kaspersky - a global cyber security company: “As rapid digitalization penetrates the healthcare sector, cyber criminals are seeing more opportunities to attack this lucrative and critical industry, which is honestly not equipped enough to face this virtual danger.”

The company further emphasized, with systems are now interconnected and mobile devices extensively used, both for remote access and for data sharing, digitalization in pharma increasingly exposes the organizations to both generic and targeted attacks. Thus, ‘creating Cyber immunity’ to ensure a powerful safeguard against such threats, becomes a top priority area in the digital transformation process of the drug industry.

Interestingly, way back in 2012, another report had also cautioned: ‘Cybercrime costs economy billions annually, with pharmaceutical and biotech companies among the hardest hit.’

Evidences of Cyber-attacks on pharma across the world:

There are numerous evidences of Cyber-attacks on the pharma players, globally. Such as, in June 2017, The Washington Post reported, US-based global pharma major, was among dozens of businesses affected by a sprawling cyberattack, with victims across the globe facing demands to hand over a ransom or have their computer networks remain locked and inaccessible.

Another report of December 13, 2017 wrote, by the third quarter of the year, ‘Merck had a better idea of the financial tab from the attack. While it generally had a very solid quarter, the results were dampened by the impact of the attack. There were $300 million in lost sales and costs.’

The Deloitte paper, titled ‘Cyber & Insider Risk at a Glance: The Pharmaceutical Industry’, also reiterated, the evidence abounds that pharmaceutical companies are the target of sophisticated Internet criminals. Serious cyberattacks are taking place even in the most advanced countries, including the US, Europe and Japan.

In the US, besides Merck, hacking has taken place against other major pharma and medical device makers, such as, ‘Boston Scientific, Abbott Laboratories, and Wyeth, the drug maker acquired by Pfizer Inc. The same group successfully hacked the Food & Drug Administration’s computer center in Maryland, exposing sensitive data (including formulas and trial data) for virtually all drugs sold in the US,’ the paper revealed.

The real impact of the attack often doesn’t come out:

Outside world often doesn’t get to know about the comprehensive impact of numerous cyber-attacks for various reasons. Some of which may include, it’s possible aftermath on both the corporate image and also the brands, besides share prices. At the same time, the situation may prompt many to question the company’s capability to protect its business in the digitalized world.

The key reasons:

As the 2018 Data Security Incidence Report highlights, healthcare-led all industries accounted for around about 25 percent of more than 750 reported incidents, in volume. As identified by Kaspersky from various cyber-attack techniques and behavior of cyber-criminals, on the digital infrastructure of pharma players, let me paraphrase below the three key motivators, besides a few others:

Getting Intellectual Property (IP) related strategic details, including R&D, unpublished clinical trial results and formulation development processes.
Detailed business plans for pre-identified products.
Or, may even be for ransom.

Where does India stand?

According to reports, India ranks 6th for highest cyber-attacks on pharmaceutical companies. Nearly 45 per cent machines in the Indian pharmaceutical organizations more than four in 10 devices were detected with malicious attempts. Ahead of India features - Pakistan (54 per cent), Egypt (53 per cent), Mexico (47 per cent), Indonesia (46 per cent) and Spain (45 per cent).

Such attacks are taking place even in India, as cyber-criminals “are slowly realizing that pharmaceutical companies house a treasure trove of highly valuable data such as the latest drugs and vaccines, the newest researches, as well as medical secrets,” the report says.

Likewise, another article, published in Health Issues India, on September 17, 2019, made some interesting points. The article is titled, ‘Cyberattacks: A crisis in Indian pharma?’ It flagged in the following three areas, in this regard:

Numerous cracks exist in the cyber-security armor of Indian pharmaceutical companies.
Just five to ten percent possess security systems strong enough to protect information from hackers.
And many do learn about a breach for several months.

Quoting a top expert, the paper reemphasized that generally in the Indian pharma companies “current systems don’t have security control and visibility in place to immediately detect the attack and respond on a real-time basis.” Thus, ‘it is unsurprising that Indian pharma has been so hard hit by cybercrime,’ the article further commented.

Conclusion:

Echoing many others, Booz Allen also advised in its article – ‘Understand the risks, and stay ahead of the game.’ This is a critical requirement in the digital age. Although, most pharma companies agree on the possibility of huge business losses from a cyber-attack, the industry continues to lag behind other industries when it comes to cyber-security implementation, the paper reiterated.

On the other hand, just strengthening a company’s IT systems, alongside an installation of powerful anti-virus software may still not be enough. Nor will it be adequate to working closely with the vendors who help protect cyber-security of the digital infrastructure of various companies. Even a robust system of forensic audit and analysis and reevaluating cyber-security protocols on an ongoing basis, may not be able to prevent cyber-attacks.

This is primarily because, a company is run, managed, looked after and cared by its employees. Although, it always remains the endeavor of any company to hire good, trustworthy and high performing employees, it does not always happen that way. It is also equally possible that some of them, at some time, for some reasons, may misuse the digital network for others or personal gain.

Thus, besides putting in place all other safeguards, as stated above, to attain desirable ‘Cyber-Immunity’, it is crucial for the organization to ensure buy-in of each employees a vital concept. This is – protecting cyber-security is everybody’s responsibility in a digital business framework, both individually and collectively. The process should start from the CEO and percolate down to the lowest rung in the ladder of hierarchy.

Hence, the reality is – ongoing digital transformation process of the pharma business would open the door of cyber-threats – often leading to crippling cyber-attacks. Thus, developing a comprehensive and strong cyber-immunity framework becomes essential for the organization. From this perspective, right from the start of this process – and not later on, drug companies need to ponder over the critical link between digitalization and cyber threats to provide adequate cyber immunity to its digital systems, for game changing 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.

Why Many Successful CEOs Don’t Want to Retire – in Pharma Too?

Posted on November 12, 2018 by Tapan Ray

“On Eve of Retirement, Jack Welch Decides to Stick Around GE a Bit,” reported the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) on October 23, 2000. Nevertheless, even the legendary Jack Welsh was made no exception to GE’s mandatory retirement policy for the CEO at 65. After holding the position of Chairman and CEO of GE for 20 years – with stellar performances, Welsh had to retire on September 07, 2001, as he attained that age.

This happened almost immediately after the US$ 45 billion merger with Honeywell. Welsh spearheaded this initiative, intending to create one of the world’s largest industrial companies, with manufacturing operations in plastics, chemicals and aerospace products, at that time. It’s a different matter altogether that later on, the report onThe Anatomy of the GE-Honeywell Disaster narrated a different reality on the consequences of this acquisition.

The key point to ponder – why many successful CEOs don’t want to easily retire, passing on the baton to a younger generation, unless directly or indirectly compelled by the investors or the regulators. In this article, I shall try to explore this point.

Many older CEOs not eager to head into retirement:

While discussing a similar point, an article titled: “For older CEOs, the issue is knowing when to bow out,” published in the USA Today on April 19, 2016, made some interesting observations. It said: “Just as older employees stay in jobs out of desire or necessity, some of those occupying the C-suite aren’t eager to head into retirement.”

According to a survey done by Korn Ferry among Fortune 500 CEOs, over the past decade:

The number of CEOs with age between 65 and 60 years, nearly doubled to 36.
Those with age between 70 and 74 increased from 9 to 13.

Korn Ferry also found in another survey that CEOs are the oldest and longest-tenured individuals compared with other prominent C-suite roles. Some of the oldest and famous global CEO names would include, Warren Buffett – 85 years of Berkshire Hathaway and Rupert Murdoch – also aged 85 years and is the Executive Chairman of News Corp. and Twenty-First Century Fox.

A couple of Indian examples of large Indian business conglomerates would include, A. M. Naik (born on June 09, 1942) who served as the Group Executive Chairman of L&T even at the age of 75 and the other – Y.V. Yogeshwar (born on February 04, 1947) was at the helm as the Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at ITC Ltd till February 4, 2017, at the age of 70. More recently, on October 22, 2018, the Reserve Bank of India accorded its approval for reappointment of Mr. Aditya Puri as its MD & CEO of HDFC Bank Ltd. till October 26, 2020 – the date of his attaining age of 70 years.

What’s happening in the pharma industry?

The pharma industry too is no different. For example, Merck & Co’s distinguished top leader – Kenneth Frazier, who turns 65 on December 2019, will stay on as CEO beyond 2019. This was reported on September 26, 2018 stating that Merck has scrapped the policy requiring its CEO to retire at the age of 65. Curiously, this announcement is quite unlike what we witnessed in a similar case with GE where no exception made to the CEO retirement policy even for someone as globally famous as Jack Welsh.

Another recent example from the pharma industry, would possibly include one more celebrated pharma CEO – Abbott’s Miles White. He is currently at 63 and in his 20^th year as the Chairman and Chief Executive of Abbott Laboratories. Just as Merck & Co, Abbott also announced that White doesn’t have any plans to leave his position as Chairman and CEO “anytime soon.” This happened, after the appointment of company’s President and Chief Operating Officer (COO), which is the first official No. 2 executive and COO Abbott happening after more than a decade, as reported on October 18, 2018.

A couple of similar examples from India that I gathered from the available data, may include: Pankaj Patel, 67 years (born 1951), the Executive Chairman of Cadila Healthcare and Basudeo Narain Singh, reportedly 77 years of age, currently the Executive Chairman at Alkem Laboratories Ltd. Let me hasten to add, these names are absolutely illustrative, and not intended to be specific to individuals, in any way.

All publicly listed companies and not privately held:

The companies that I have quoted above, both global and local, are publicly listed companies. Thus, their ownership is dispersed among the general public in many shares of stock, which are freely traded on a stock exchange, or in over the counter markets. In view of this, the general questions come up:

Why the incumbent CEO can’t develop a successor from within or even outside the company during his/her tenure spanning over so many years?
Is there any other underlying reason for the same? If so, what it is?

Not considering the country-heads of MNCs in India:

Let me admit upfront with all due respect, for the purpose of this discussion, I am not considering the country-heads of pharma MNCs in India. This is mainly because, they don’t fall in the same category as the CEOs of Indian publicly listed pharma companies, having much broader global responsibility, commensurate authority and accountability.

At the most, the country heads of pharma MNCs may be compared with those managers who are in charge of only India, or South Asia operations of the domestic pharma players. Which is why, country heads of MNCs are commonly called ‘General Managers’ – internally, especially by their respective headquarters.

Is mandatory CEO retirement policy a good idea?

There are many studies on whether a mandatory CEO retirement policy is a good idea. I shall quote below one such important study to illustrate the point.

‘Should Older CEOs Be Forced to Retire?’ That’s the title of an article, published in the Harvard Business Review (HBR) on February 15, 2016. The author found that more than a third of S&P 500 firms have a mandatory retirement policy for their CEOs. The aim is to drive out executives who are past their prime. In the overall perspective, the HBR article is in sync with the idea.

Referring to a research paper recently published in the Journal of Empirical Finance, the above article highlighted some important findings of the researchers, as below:

Older CEOs were less “active,” as measured by a mix of hiring, firing, mergers, joint ventures, and more.
Mandatory retirement helped firms avoid the declining performance associated with older CEOs.
The negative correlation between CEO age and firm performance disappeared in companies with mandatory CEO retirement policies.
Mandatory retirement seemed to be helping firms with older CEOs to avoid the under-performance trap.
Length of CEOs’ executive experience plays a great role in a company’s financial success.
When there are two CEO candidates, both having requisite experience of equal number of years, the data suggests the younger one should be preferred.
Conversely, when there are two CEO candidates of the same age, bet on the one who’s been with the firm longer.

Should CEO retire at the peak of his/her golden era?

This issue seems to be a contentious one. Be that as it may, about one third of S&P 500 firms have mandatory retirement policies for their CEOs. The goal is to systematically let go of leaders who are past their peak performance years.

An article published in The Washington Post on September 27, 2018 came with a headline: ‘Fewer companies are forcing CEOs to retire when they hit their golden years.’ It observed: ‘Sometimes a mandatory retirement age is lifted to give the current chief executive a little more time on the job, potentially clearing the way for a successor to prepare. For instance, in June 2017, manufacturing giant 3M said its board of directors was waiving the mandatory retirement age of 65 for its then-CEO, Inge Thulin, and then named a successor, chief operating officer Michael Roman, earlier this year.’

While retirement norms may be shifting, there’s seems to be a trend of indirect pressure on companies to add younger executives and directors to the board. This is primarily prompted by a growing demand for digital insights and technology experience in the CEO position – commented another article published in the Los Angeles Times on September 28, 2018. It also reported, many experts on corporate governance and executive succession believe that rescinding its policy requiring the CEO to retire at the age of 65, Merck & Co, ‘added to a long downward trend in the companies that have mandatory retirement ages for their top executives.’

Conclusion:

Regardless of whether a mandatory CEO retirement policy is a good idea or not, the aging high performing CEO’s desire to continue with the job for an indefinite period, has some downsides. It could thwart aspiration of similar high performing younger direct reports of the CEO. They include especially those who are ready to take charge and catapult the organization to a greater height of success, sooner.

A CEO’s desire to continue with the job, even after a generally accepted age of retirement, could also adversely impact a well-charted succession planning process for the top position. A time-bound succession plan is essential not only for a natural and smooth transition in the CEO position of an organization, but also to address any unforeseen emergency, such as a ‘drop dead like situation.’

Further, if there is no mandatory CEO retirement policy, or even rescinding it when there is one for a high a performing CEO, why there should be such policy for other C-suite, or many other important leadership positions of the same organization, with similar performance records?

One of the reasons behind a high performing aging CEO or an Executive Chairman not wanting to retire may also include the intent of the Board members to play safe. Nevertheless, it is a complicated and contentious issue. Regardless of whatever reasons lead to such a situation, the point to ponder is: What signal does it send to other high performing leaders? Does it convey, even the CEO is governed by similar policies as applied to other leaders of the corporation? Or, it smacks of a a discretionary corporate culture of governance? There is a need to ferret out a robust answer to this question – for a long-term sustainable success of any organization, including pharma.

By: Tapan J. Ray

For Patient-Centricity: Emerging a C-Suite Role

Posted on August 20, 2018 by Tapan Ray

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Demonstrate integrity and authenticity through all company actions.

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

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

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

Products to provide quantifiable value to patients.

Reliable supply and comprehensive patient safeguard.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

Pharma Stakeholder Sentiment: Back to Square One?

Posted on May 28, 2018 by Tapan Ray

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.

The coming disruption in pharma will force drug makers to focus even more on short-term profits and their own survival.

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

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

Posted on September 18, 2017 by Tapan Ray

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

Cancer treatment is beyond the reach of many:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not everybody agrees:

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

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

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

The latest study busts the myth:

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

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.

The Stakeholder-Mix Has Changed, But Pharma Marketing Has Not

Posted on June 13, 2016 by Tapan Ray

“We try never to forget that medicine is for the people. It is not for profit. Profits follow, and if we have remembered that, they never fail to appear.”

In 1952, George Wilhelm Herman Emanuel Merck, the then President of Merck & Co of the United States said this. He was then aptly quoted on the front cover of the ‘Time Magazine’, epitomizing his clear vision for the company: “Medicine is for people, not for the profits”.

The globally acclaimed Management Guru – Peter F. Drucker had also clearly articulated in his management classics that, “Profit is not the purpose of business and the concept of profit maximization is not only meaningless, but dangerous.” He further said, “There is only one valid purpose of a business, and that is to create a customer”

As this is an ongoing process, in the pharma perspective, it may be construed as ensuring access to new drugs for an increasing number of patients.

It really worked:

In those days, driven by such visionary leadership, the pharma used to be one of the most respected industries and Merck topped the list of the most admired corporations in America. It is clear that pharma leadership at that time wanted to make ‘inclusive growth’, both in the letter and spirit, as an integral part of the organizational progress, moving with time.

Thus, it worked. The sales and marketing growth of the global drug industry at that time was not lackluster, either, in any way. The R&D pipeline of the drug companies used to be also rich, with regular flow of breakthrough new products too.

Straying away from ‘inclusive’ to ‘self-serving’ strategies:

Much water has flown down the bridges, since then, so is the change in the public and other stakeholders’ perception about the pharma industry, in general.

Sharply in contrast with George W. Merck’s (Merck & Co) vision in 1952 that “Medicine is for people, not for the profits”, in December 2013 the global CEO of Bayer reportedly proclaimed in public that: “Bayer didn’t develop its cancer drug, Nexavar (sorafenib) for India but for Western Patients that can afford it.”

It appears that the focus of the pharma industry on ‘inclusive growth’ seems to have strayed away to ‘self-serving growth’, with the passage of time. As a result, a large majority of the new stakeholders started harboring a strong negative feeling about the same industry that continues its active engagement with the very same business of developing new drugs that save many precious lives.

Granted that the business environment has changed since then, with increasing complexities. Nonetheless, there does not seem to be any justifiable reason for straying away from ‘inclusive growth’ strategies.

As are regularly being reported, both in the global and local media, mindless arrogance on fixing exorbitant high new drug prices severely limiting their access, unabated malpractices in drug marketing and escaping with hefty fines, releasing only favorable clinical trial data, just to mention a few, are giving the industry image a strong tail spin.

Stakeholders changed, but pharma marketing did not:

Keeping the same strategic direction and pace, overall pharma brand marketing strategy also continued to be increasingly ‘self-serving’, and tradition bound. Success, and more success in building relationship with the doctors, whatever may be the means, is still considered as the magic wand for business excellence, with any pharma brand. Thus, since over decades, building and strengthening the relationship with doctors, continue to remain the primary fulcrum for conceptualizing pharma marketing strategies.

It does not seem to have not dawned yet for the pharma marketers, that over a period of time, the market is undergoing a metamorphosis, with several key changes, and some of these would be quite disruptive in the traditional pharma marketing ball game. Consequently, the above key the fulcrum of pharma marketing is also gradually shifting, slowly but surely.

In this article, I shall deliberate only on this area.

A new marketing paradigm:

The key customer in the pharma business is no longer just the doctors. That was the bygone paradigm. The pharma stakeholders’ mix is no longer the same as what it used to be.

The evolving new paradigm constitutes multitude of important stakeholders, requiring a comprehensive multi-stakeholder approach in modern day’s pharma marketing game plan.

Patients, governments, policy influencers, health insurance providers, hospital administrators, social media, and many others, have now started playing and increasing role in determining the consumption pattern of pharma brands, and their acceptability. More importantly, these not so influential stakeholders of the past, are gradually becoming instrumental in building overall pharma business environment too. This necessitates customized engagement strategy for each of these stakeholders, with high precision and relevance.

Changing mindset is critical:

An effective response to this challenge of change, calls for a radical change in the marketing mindset of the top pharma marketers. The most basic of which, is a strong will to move away from the age old ‘one size fits all’ and ‘self-serving’ initiatives with some tweaking here or there, to a radically different ‘inclusive marketing’ approach. In this game, both the types and the individual customer concerned, would occupy the center stage for any meaningful interactions on the brands and associated diseases, besides many other areas of relevance.

Multi-stakeholder – Multi-channel approach:

For a multi-stakeholder customized engagement, innovative use of multiple channels would play a crucial role, more than ever before.

Availability of state of the art digital tools, would facilitate crafting of comprehensive marketing strategies, accordingly. For example, for the doctors, some companies are moving towards e-detailing.

As I discussed in my article in this Blog titled, “e-detailing: The Future of Pharmaceutical Sales?” on September 13 2013, this modern way of interaction with the doctors is fast evolving. E-detailing is highly customized, very interactive, more effective, quite flexible, and at the same time cost-efficient too. Live analytics that e-detailing would provide instantly, could be of immense use while strategizing the game plans of pharmaceutical marketing.

A feel of the changing wind direction:

A relatively new book titled, “Good Pharma: How Marketing Creates Value in Pharma”, published in March 2014, and written by Marcel Corstjens, and Edouard Demeire, well captures some of the key changes in the pharma industry with a number interesting examples.

The above book seems to somewhat respond to Ben Goldacre’s bestselling book ‘‘Bad Pharma: How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients’, which I discussed in this blog on October 15, 2012. It made some important observations in many areas of pharma business. I am quoting below just a few of those incoming changes to give a feel on the urgent need of recasting the marketing models of the pharma industry:

On emerging markets’ like India:

“Emerging markets should not be seen as low-hanging fruits. Their prevalence of diseases may not be the same, the stakeholders may be very different. In addition, the healthcare infrastructure is often not very sophisticated, and these markets can be rather volatile and difficult to predict. It’s not a sure bet; you have to invest. … Companies need to commit seriously to building a heavily localized approach that is substantiated by a global reputation.” This is perhaps not happening in India, to a large extent, as I reckon.

On personalized Health Care (PHC):

The new drugs brought to market by the pharma companies are not just expensive, but often work only for small segments of the patient population. In India this situation mostly leads to very high out of pocket expenditure, which often is wasted for the drug not working on the patient. Thus, the regulators and payers in the developing countries are setting the threshold for higher reimbursement. The authors observed that PHC is now being put forward as the industry’s best bet for satisfying stricter effectiveness criteria, not only by developing new drugs, but also by investing in the magical trio of the future: “drug-biomarker-diagnostic. In that case, pharma marketing would need to undergo a significant change, starting from now.

On ‘Category captains’:

The book also says, “The most financially successful companies in the past 20 years has been Novo-Nordisk. They have specialized in diabetes, they’re extremely good at that. Roche specializes in oncology. The larger the company, the more ‘captive’ areas they can have. The success of Novo-Nordisk, a relatively small company, proves firms of all sizes have a chance to compete, as long as they stick closely to their strengths. When this happens in a much larger scale, pharma marketing would also be quite different and more focused.

Many pharma companies are still avoiding to change, successfully. For example, as announced on May 31, 2016, Intercept Pharma of the United States announced its new liver disease drug with a hefty price tag of US$ 70,000 a year. According to the report, the company said, prices are justified by a drug’s level of innovation and cost savings for the healthcare system. This justification has now become very typical in the pharmaceutical world, which has been facing barrage of criticisms, including from Capitol Hill, about too-high drug prices.

However, as we move on, the writing on the wall seems to be very clear on the sustainability of health care business, the world over.

Conclusion:

Finally, the question arises, would the traditional approach still be good enough to achieve the desired sales and marketing objectives, any longer?

No, probably not, I reckon. With changed mindsets, ‘getting under the skin’ of each stakeholder, separately, would assume key importance. It would play a key role, while devising each component of any cutting-edge pharma sales and marketing strategy, tactic, and task.

The shift from the old paradigm, signals towards a total recast of pharma marketing to make it more ‘inclusive’, and not just ‘self-serving’. Newly crafted commensurate grand marketing plans and their effective implementation should satisfy the needs and wants of all stakeholders, simultaneously. Singular focus on building, or further strengthen the relationship with prescribing doctors, won’t be adequate enough, anymore.

Thus, the name of the new pharma ballgame would again be ‘inclusive marketing for inclusive growth’.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Digital Marketing: Is Pharma Still A Laggard?

Posted on August 17, 2015 by Tapan Ray

‘Brand Marketing’ in the pharmaceutical industry, across the world, has mostly remained tradition bound, despite its rapid embracement of modern state of the art tools and technology in most other areas of the business.

Many other industries have been demonstrating over a period of time, how innovative usage of ‘Digital Marketing’ can provide cutting edge advantages to attain business excellence.

Expanded reach:

Today, ‘Digital Marketing’ has expanded its reach much beyond just business. This is currently being adopted even by the political parties and quite successfully. Besides promoting political candidates to win elections, imaginative deployment of high-tech tools is helping these parties to create game-changing favorable ground-swell, across the world.

Now, Indians have started witnessing it, even in the hinterland. It all started with associated glamor and grandeur, to a large extent, from the last general election of the country. Extensive utilization and usage of digital platforms, ranging from social media to high tech 3-D speeches of the political power seekers, have helped heralding the dawn of a new genre of political marketing in India. It helps creating favorable public opinion, capturing a much larger pie of the voters’ mindshare much quicker than the traditional form of marketing campaigns, without even an iota of doubt.

The ‘T-Factor’ changing the operating environment:

Though pharma marketing fundamentals would mostly remain the same, the overall environment in which the industry operates is continuously evolving, at a fairly rapid pace. The ‘T- factor’ or the ‘Technology Factor’ is hastening this process of continuous change.

We are experiencing how pivotal role the mobile or smart phones and tablets are playing at this juncture, when people spend more time with these devices than PCs. Simultaneously, general engagements and interactions are growingly becoming more digital than physical.

All these are setting new trends related to doctors’ and patients’ engagement initiatives, including, seeking, managing and communicating information to achieve desired goals.

Pharma industry is slow in adopting ‘Digital Marketing’:

As I see it, some global pharma companies have started experimenting with ‘Digital Marketing’. However, that is no more than just a very small component of their overall brand or corporate marketing strategy, driven mainly by:

High operational cost and lower commensurate returns of traditional pharma marketing.
And, The ‘Zing Factor’ – sheer energy, enthusiasm and liveliness of it, as an in-thing.

This is vindicated by the fact, while the global digital spending by pharma industry is expected to be around US$2.2 Billion in this year, the total sales and marketing expenditure of just one global pharma major – Novartis was US$ 14.6 Billion in 2013, according to a BBC News report of November 6, 2014.

Digital space cannot be ignored:

While giving example of powerful impact of digital media on brand marketing process,

I would cite the instance of recent ban in the country of ‘Maggi Noodles’ manufactured by Nestle, as ordered by the Indian Government authorities.

The first complaint on the product quality of ‘Maggi Noodles’ was reported from Uttar Pradesh (UP).

There, a product testing laboratory allegedly detected ‘lead and MSG’ much above the permissible level in ‘Maggi’, which is mostly consumed by children. It created an immediate mass furor in the social media. The impact of public outrage in the digital space, based on this just one incident, was so intense in just 24 hours that it influenced many with the same intensity of negative emotion, almost in no time.

Absence could be very costly:

All-time active presence of a company in the digital space is important. Absence of it, at times, could invite disastrous consequences.

In the above case, Nestle management, as I understand, was rather quiet on the social media during the critical period of public fury. Consequently, the inevitable happened, as usually transpires under the fierce pressure of social media.

‘Maggi Noodle’ was immediately banned in the country, without probably following the due process of law, as the Bombay High Court ruling says. The brand image suffered a huge immediate blow. Revenue of billions of dollars vanished in the thin year, almost overnight.

What would have happened with Nestle management being alert with proactive skillful communication in the digital space during this critical time of social media outrage? Probably, the damage inflicted on ‘Maggi Noodles’ brand could have been minimized. Who knows?

That’s the power of the digital space as we experience today. Thus, it needs to be optimally leveraged by the pharma industry, without further delay, with creative ‘Digital Marketing’ engagements.

‘Digital Marketing’ in pharma – a quick look:

For the benefits of all readers let us recapitulate what does this process really entail? ‘Digital Marketing’ in pharma is construed as a targeted, measurable and interactive marketing process of brands or disease related services using digital technology. It ensures immense flexibility and offers a broad spectrum of variety, for patients’ engagements of various types, and reaching out to doctors for increasing prescription generation.

Engagements and interactions with doctors, patients and other relevant stakeholders through digital channels, such as, social media, smart phones/tablets, health applications, e-mails and e-detailing are of immense importance today, as a sizable number of them are looking for more and more instant information, which could be product, disease or any other service related and important to them for a better quality of life.

Its relevance:

‘Digital Marketing’ would soon assume high priority for all round pharma business in India, just as it has already happened in many other industries. The speed of its becoming a critical center piece in the pharma marketing strategy formulation exercise is directly linked with the increasing speed of Internet and smart phone usage by people of all ages with enquiring minds.

On the other hand, rapid change in market dynamics and extremely busy schedules of the important doctors, triggering fast decline in the productivity of traditional product detailing, would hasten this process of change.

The key advantages:

The key objectives of both ‘Traditional or Physical’ and ‘Digital Marketing’ in the pharma industry are basically the same, such as, building brand perception and brand preferences, giving rise to excellence in business performance.

According to a paper of April 16, 2014, published by Salford Business School, Manchester, UK,

The key advantages of ‘Digital Marketing’ over ‘Traditional Physical Marketing’ are as follows, where the ‘Digital Marketing’:

Helps businesses to develop a wider customer base as it does not rely on physical presence or interaction.

Encourages customers to interact directly with businesses.

Is not limited by conventional opening times – customers can interact at a time and place convenient for them

Calibrated increase in usage of ‘digital media’:

Both traditional and digital forms of marketing are currently important in the pharma industry, though in varying degree. Each pharma player has to carefully evaluate one’s current and future product-mix and customer base as they would decide either to initiate or scale up marketing operations in the digital space.

Well calibrated increase in the usage of contemporary ‘Digital Marketing’, keeping in mind rapidly changing aspirational mindset of young Indians, including doctors and patients, with smart phones being a key enabler, would help the Indian pharma industry, significantly, as we move on.

Starting with selective approach:

Initially a company may be selective in its ‘Digital Marketing’ approach, which could be based on digital penetration in the geographical regions or areas and its demographic configuration.

For example, if a particular region shows high smart phone usage for community or group chat within the general population, a pharma company may explore the possibility of creatively designing a smart phone based ‘digital patient chat group’ as a part of its patient engagement initiative,

In this ‘digital patient chat group’, the members suffering from chronic or even serious ailments can discuss with each other the issues for which one is seeking a solution, where even the pharma companies can intervene, wherever they can add value and is legally permissible.

A few examples:

To add a perspective to this discussion, I would give below just a few examples, at random, of various ‘Digital Marketing’ initiatives of global pharma players:

Merck (MSD) uses cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil ’s Facebook fan pages to drive awareness and traffic to their cervical cancer site.

Pharma brand Cephalon promotes pain relief by creating an interactive website.

Boehringer Ingelheim worked with Doctors.net.uk to run a 12-month campaign to raise awareness and sales for its Asasantin Retard, an antithrombotic agent which helps prevent the formation of blood clots.

AstraZeneca’s online campaign for Nexium aimed to educate the patients and build their brand preference. The tactics included coupon downloads, driving qualified potential customers to the site and encouraging them to talk with their doctor about Nexium.

Novartis set up a patient focused website targeting all four major organ transplants drugs.

UCB Pharma partnered with social media platform patientslikeme.com to bring an Epilepsy community to its site.

GSK developed a promotional website aimed at HIV specialists. The site, at www.sciencexchange.co.uk, offers HIV specialists a one-stop-shop for exchanging information on HIV and its management.

Sanofi uses YouTube with a number of product messages

Conclusion:

Today in India, we witness even various political parties, which used to be very traditional in their approaches, have started using a wide variety of digital marketing tools successfully by deploying astute domain experts, to achieve whatever they want to.

On the other hand, despite spectacular evolution and progress of digital technology in many verticals of the pharma industry, its marketing models, by and large, still don’t seem to find these highly productive tools much useful, as compared to a large number of different industries.

Currently, digital information and communication channels are catching growing number of eyeballs of even the doctors and patients. Despite this shifting paradigm, with large to very large field sales forces trying to reach the increasingly busy doctors, pharma industry is still relying heavily on traditional and physical marketing models, including promotion through medical journals and even the direct mailers.

Intriguingly, barring a limited number of global players, pharma industry in general, and Indian pharma companies in particular, seem to be far lagging behind in creative digital marketing initiatives.

As the pressure would keep mounting for more returns from every rupee spent on sales and marketing, pharma marketers would require to reassess the differential value addition potential of digital marketing media. While doing so, they would first feel the need to augment their traditional marketing models with selective and synergistic digital interventions and thereafter to spearhead the core communication of brand values together with customer engagement and interaction initiatives with the help of digital media.

The effectiveness in working out a game changing crafty blend of both brand and patient-centric communication package with digital tools would separate men from the boys. It would demand top quality cerebral inputs from the pharma marketers – a requirement that is not so easily available in the current space of pharmaceutical marketing, dominated by a wide variety of freebies.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Quantum Value Addition With Health Apps, Going Beyond Drugs

Posted on March 30, 2015 by Tapan Ray

Besides all important brand attributes and how well those are communicated to the doctors, the ‘game winning’ differentiating factors in the prescription drug business, as it appears today, would revolve around overall quality of patient-centric approach and offerings of pharma companies, craftily tagged with the associated products.

To hasten business growth, being more and more patient-centric, in increasingly competitive, demanding and complex environment, pharma players would require to leverage the cutting-edge technology to its fullest for significant value addition in their respective sales and marketing models too.

Keeping pace with today’s ‘technology revolution’, rapid advent of various game-changing and user-friendly digital health applications for consumers are showing immense potential for a refreshing catalytic change in the overall landscape for patient-centric healthcare services as a key differentiating tool from the pharma players’ perspective.

The capability and capacity of ‘out of box’ thinking, professional expertise to choose and customize the right technological tools, making them key components of pharma sales and marketing models and above all, their effective implementation on the ground, would eventually differentiate men from the boys in the ball game of competitive excellence in the Indian pharma industry.

This emerging opportunity brings to the fore immense potential to revolutionize the treatment process of many serious chronic ailments with significant value creation, even in India, generating a unique synergy between the drugs and customized disease related digital tools.

In this evolving ball game; wearable, decent looking and user-friendly ‘Health Apps’, installable in smartphones having Internet and Bluetooth connectivity along with touch screens; signal a great potential for augmentation of the overall disease treatment process.

Consequently, it would kick-start a healthy competition within the pharma companies to continuously raising the bar of unique value offerings to patients, more than ever before.

A close experience:

Purely prompted by my keen interest in technology for a long while,the ‘Health App’ that I have bought and installed in my iPhone and wearing for sometime, is basically a multifunctional and multi-dimensional fitness tracker.

From the decent looking digital ‘Wrist Band’ that comes with it, the Health App tracks on a daily basis, kilometers that I have walked (from pre-calibrated steps), calories that I have consumed with intake of different food types and burnt up through physical workouts, total duration of time that I have slept in a day, quality of my sleep (sound and light sleep) with duration, number of times that I woke up at night, precise daily intake with quantity of nutrition, such as, fluid, carbohydrate, protein, fiber, different types of fat, salt etc., pulse rate, breathing and mood, besides many others.

Current users:

Besides some global pharma companies that I shall deliberate below, the current users of ‘Health Apps’ are mostly those people who are increasingly becoming fitness and diet conscious (at any age) and also want to take proactive measures for prevention of many chronic ailments.

A study:

According to a report co-authored by an official of IMS Institute of Healthcare Informatics, a study based on nearly 43,700 purported Health or Medical Apps available on Apple’s iTunes App Store, found that 69 percent of those Apps targeted the consumers and patients, while 31 percent were built for use by clinicians. Most of the ‘Consumer Healthcare Apps’ were simple in design and do little more than provide information.

The study observes, a large number of Health Apps are being designed to track simpler data on health and fitness. However, the more sophisticated Apps are capable to perform advanced functions, such as, real-time monitoring and high-resolution imaging.

Possibility for much wider use in healthcare:

Although, many of these Apps have been devised as personal fitness and health trackers directly by the consumers, the information and hard data thus captured can possibly be shared with the medical practitioners by the patients, as and when required. This data could serve as valuable patient life-style information inputs for the doctors, while managing their serious chronic illnesses.

Health Apps could also help the users reduce, at least, the primary care costs through preventive self-monitoring measures and take control of their own basic health.

In tandem, I reckon, there is a good possibility for a much wider use of such Health Apps in India by the pharma companies, along with many drugs, especially those, which are used for chronic ailments.

For example, real-time data tracking on:

-Exercise, diet and Body Mass Index (BMI) for patients on anti-diabetic and anti-hypertensive drugs

- Quality of sleep for patients with sleep disorders and are on related medicines

- Mood for patients taking anti-depressant medications

The data captured by the Health Apps in all such related areas could be useful for both the doctors and the patients in the process of effective disease management along with the drugs.

Going beyond drugs:

Based on this emerging trend, it is envisaged that in not too distant future, it won’t be very uncommon for patients, suffering from especially serious chronic diseases, to get prescriptions for both the drug and an the related customized Health App, for better quality of life through effective disease control.

Similarly, some hospital discharge orders may possibly include downloading of related mobile Health App on patients’ smartphones, primarily to provide an ongoing link between the doctor and the patient for better patient care and more effective follow-up visits.

Pharma players showing interest in Health App market:

It is, therefore, no surprise that pharma players have started showing keen interest in Health App market. In fact, this emerging market is now dominated by the big pharma players, with Bayer having 11.2 percent market share, followed closely by Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

The top 20 Health App makers are as follows:

No	Company	No. Of Health Apps
1.	Bayer	139
2.	Merck	111
3.	Novartis	108
4.	Pfizer	62
5.	Boehringer Ingelheim	51
6.	Janssen	45
7.	AstraZeneca	44
8.	GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)	41
9.	Roche	41
10.	Johnson &Johnson (J&J)	39
11.	Novo Nordisk	32
12.	Siemens	29
13.	Amgen	28
14.	Medtronic	27
15.	Abbott	24
16.	Biogen Idec	20
17.	Merial	20
18.	Sanofi	20
19.	Genentech	19
20.	Allergan	17

(Source: Pocket.md as of 12/2/2013)

A novel business expansion opportunity:

Pharma players in India may consider to actively focus on, with requisite resource deployment, to collaboratively develop and market smartphones based digital Health Apps, for quantum value addition in their brand promotion.

Moving towards this direction, pharma sales and marketing strategy for a chronic disease treatment should consider making Health Apps an integral part of doctors’ prescription along with the related drugs of the company.

Some examples:

To give an idea of the evolving trend, I am citing below a few examples, out of lot many, in this emerging area:

- Betaseron (interferon beta-1b) of Bayer: This drug is indicated for the treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis to reduce the frequency of clinical exacerbations. The company launched its first iPhone App, named ‘myBETAapp’ with ‘Personalized Tools’ to assist people on Betaseron (interferon beta-1b) in managing their Multiple Sclerosis (MS) treatment.

myBETAapp provides patients with injection reminders, injection site rotation assistance and injection history. Through Internet, myBETAapp also gives patients access to the BETAPLUS Web page on Betaseron.com, including links to educational tools, peer support and contacts listed on the site. With active phone service, patients enrolled in the BETAPLUS program can dial directly to speak to BETA Nurses, who are specially trained in MS.

- Tobi Podhaler (tobramycin inhalation powder) of Novartis: This drug is indicated for the treatment of Cystic Fibrosis.

Podhaler Pro App is an iPhone based navigation tool for patients and also the doctors during treatment with Tobi Podhaler. This Health App is a customizable digital pocket companion that helps, besides many others, with timely reminders to keep track of treatments, real patient stories and access to a live PodCare nurse to answer questions about taking treatment.

- Pradaxa (dabigatran etexilate)of Boehringer Ingelheim: This drug is indicated for ‘Reduction of Risk of Stroke and Systemic Embolism in Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation; Treatment of Deep Venous Thrombosis and Pulmonary Embolism and Reduction in the Risk of Recurrence of Deep Venous Thrombosis and Pulmonary Embolism’. It comes with a Health App, available in online ‘Apple Stores’. This is a tool providing healthcare professionals with information about stroke risk in Von-valvular Atrial Fibrillation.

Pradaxa Health App contains a ‘Stroke Risk Calculator’, ‘Bleeding Risk Calculator’, Renal function and dosing and administration information.

Pradaxa Health App also has a great resource section, split into ‘Patient and Health Care Professionals’ sections, which can be sent to patients via email.

- Xarelto (rivaroxaban) of Janssen Pharmaceuticals: This drug is indicated for ‘Reducing Stroke Risk in Patients With Non-valvular Atrial Fibrillation (AF); Treating Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) and Pulmonary Embolism (PE) and Reducing the Risk of Recurrence; DVT Prophylaxis After Knee or Hip Replacement Surgery’. It also comes with a Health App, called Xarelto Patient Center and available in online ‘Apple Stores’.

Xarelto Patient Center App features include, personalize questions that help patients speak with their doctors about treatment with Xarelto, Appointment reminder, Xarelto ‘Savings Programs’, Registration to receive more information, Videos that share more information on Xarelto and hear from others who have been treated with the drug, After receiving a prescription the patient can enroll in the ‘XARELTO CarePath’ patient support and savings program.

Thus, especially for high-risk ailments, such iOS Apps directed at patients with information on the drug, including interactions with other medicines, dietary requirements, fitness/health trackers, besides many others, can add additional value both to the prescribers and the patients in the process of effective disease management.

Tightening the loose knots:

A 2014 report titled, ‘r2g mobile Health Economics’ by ‘Research2Guidance’ states, even though they try hard, most of the pharma companies fail to have a significant impact on the mHealth App market. Some pharma companies have published more than 100 Apps available for iOS and Android, but have generated only limited downloads and usage.

It states, pharma companies have created only little reach within the smartphone/tablet App user base. In fact, the leading pharma companies have been able to generate 6.6m downloads since 2008 and have less than 1m active users.

Analysis and comparison of the App activities of the top 12 Pharma companies in the report, gives reasons why pharma companies have not succeeded in becoming leading mHealth Apps providers, as follows:

- The App portfolios are not globally available: Almost half of the pharma companies’ Apps target only local markets. This means that their apps are available only in 3 or less countries.

- The App portfolio is built around the core products of the pharma companies and not around the actual market demand: For example, if a company specializes in the treatment of hematological diseases, the App portfolio reflects that. Apps in this case would provide references to the latest research, support diagnosis and facilitate information exchange with/between the experts. There exists an App market for such products, but there are other segments e.g. health tracking, weight loss, fitness or diabetes condition management, which attract more users.

- No cross-referencing or common and recognizable design: So far, pharma companies have not used the full potential of cross-referencing between their Apps. They also do not use common style guides for their App portfolio. Both of these could improve their App visibility as well as strengthen their corporate identity in the App market.

From this research analysis, it is quite evident that there is a need to tighten the loose knots in the Health Apps space by the pharma players. All improvement areas, as indicated above, should be addressed, sooner, especially, the need to targeting patients globally and inclusion of segments such as health/fitness tracking, weight loss, together with patient management focus areas of chronic illness conditions, such as, diabetes or hypertension, which have been attracting more users.

A comprehensive look and well thought-out action would help realizing true potential of the Health Apps market in India.

Conclusion:

Based on the emerging trend, it appears, those days are not quite far off, when it will become quite common for the doctors and also for the hospitals to co-prescribe with the drugs, user-friendly, disease related smartphone based Health Apps for the patients. This practice would provide an ongoing link between the doctors and the patient, leading to not just better quality of treatment, but a comprehensive overall healthcare in that specific disease condition.

However, currently there does exist a down side to this approach, which can’t be totally ignored either. The reason being, such Health Apps are not quite affordable to many, just yet, especially in a country like India. This affordability barrier could probably be overcome, if Indian IT software and hardware development companies consider this area lucrative from an emerging business opportunity perspective, as the country moves on with its ‘Make in India’ campaign.

If it makes sense…probably it does, it needs to be tried out sooner, in a much larger scale, for a win-win outcome. To begin with, the interested pharma players can tailor these well differentiated value offerings, at least to suit those, who can afford such augmented treatment process for a better quality of life, going much beyond drugs.

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: Merck

A Link To Ponder: Pharma Digitalization – Cyber Threats – Cyber Immunity

Why Many Successful CEOs Don’t Want to Retire – in Pharma Too?

For Patient-Centricity: Emerging a C-Suite Role

Pharma Stakeholder Sentiment: Back to Square One?

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

The Stakeholder-Mix Has Changed, But Pharma Marketing Has Not

Digital Marketing: Is Pharma Still A Laggard?

Quantum Value Addition With Health Apps, Going Beyond Drugs