Tag Archives: model

Growing Intricacies of Today’s Field Staff Role And The Path Ahead

Posted on by
Reply

With a varying degree, and in various forms, a hybrid working model is now gaining greater acceptance of several top pharma companies, across the world, just as in many other industries.

This trend gets echoed in an article of December 07, 2022, published in the Reuters Events Pharma. It recalled, how pharma industry, since nearly the last three years, was compelled to adopt fully digitalengagement models initially triggered by the Covid pandemic. Gradually, more pharma players are preparing themselves to adopt a more complex and hybrid customer engagement model, with a diverse mix of engagement modalities.

Consequently, in many ways the medical rep’s role is undergoing a metamorphosis and becoming more complex. Thus: ‘There is a growing requirement for them to connect the right decision-makers at the provider with the right subject matter experts in pharma’, as the above study recommends.

This situation demands, more flexible customer engagement strategies, based on ongoing data-science based indicators – replacing the traditional static outreach schedules and content that remain in place for months at a time. In today’s article, I shall dwell in this rapidly emerging area.

This changing trend is obvious:

The above change is obvious, and also gets reflected in an article, published by the McKinsey & Company on September 30, 2022. The paper indicated, although some physician’s preference for in-person meetings with the reps has rebounded since November 2020, it was still below pre-pandemic levels (58 percent compared to 76 percent) as of August 2021. Thus, there is a need for a change.

The need for a hybrid approach – why?

The need for a hybrid approach in modern sales and marketing has been vindicated by several recent studies. The doctors or other healthcare customers can now broadly be put in three categories, as follows:

  • Doctors looking for a Rep’s personal visit for product briefing.
  • Difficult to meet doctors, who prefer to get relevant product/ disease information through remote platforms, as they want and when they want.
  • Doctors who now prefer a hybrid engagement, some personal and some remotely.

Thus, no wonder why the top players are upending their traditional go-to-market (GTM) strategies by augmenting their field sales forces with remote-sales organizations for better meeting the needs and preferences of physicians and other customers. The above McKinsey study also underscored, ‘’the shift to a hybrid sales approach has been demonstrated to unlock growth opportunities and reduce the cost to serve across care settings.

Hybridization of a pharma field staff job with push and pull strategies:

For pharma field staff, like Medical Representatives, one may wonder how their work can be made hybrid for increased effectiveness by manifold. Let me illustrate this point with the example of hybrid drug detailing to its target audience.

As many would know, drug companies have been traditionally engaging with physicians mostly with face-to-face product detailing, for increased prescription demand generation. This approach primarily entails a ‘push strategy’.

Whereas e-detailing is crafted with a built-in ‘pull strategy’, allowing customers to fetch what they want – how they want and when they want. E-detailing in various sophisticated forms is now receiving a strong tailwind on its sails, after getting a strong boost during the lockdown period of the recent Covid-19 pandemic.

The key benefits for hybridization:

As a research paper in this regard, published in the i-manager’s Journal on Management found that high technology based e-detailing not only reduce selling costs, but more importantly, increase the company’s physician reach and communication effectiveness powered by a pull driven system.

This study, after thoroughly examining the strength and weaknesses of both the traditional and the technology driven approach to drug detailing, proposed a blended or hybrid selling model as superior. The researchers found that ‘by integrating push and pull strategies with the use of new information tools, pharmaceutical marketers can best maximize the process of diffusing drug knowledge, while best considering the demanding needs of selling to time pressured physicians.’

The paper then concluded that – “Hybrid detailing can enhance physician knowledge by providing pharmaceutical marketers with more effective digital information tools that can further support and improve an adaptive and relational selling approach.’

That’s why, many pharma majors now believe that a hybrid detailing model, can help the company to better assess, track, and evaluate their selling effectiveness by employing information tools, systematically. This approach can be an integral part of the overall Omnichannel communication platform of the organization.

Transformation to Hybrid Customer engagement model – some options:

There could be several options to make a transition into a hybrid customer engagement model from a traditional one. One way could be to create a fresh infrastructure for a state-of-the-art e-marketing platform, alongside, of course, traditional sales and marketing.

Another way may well be, to keep traditional sales and marketing in-house, and outsource Omnichannel digital sales and marketing activities. The choice of the right options will be decided by the leadership of individual companies, based on their wherewithal, and other strength and weaknesses.

Outsourcing of digital marketing – an option worth pondering:

Outsourcing of digital sales and marketing aren’t new in the global pharma industry, many large pharma companies, including Merck, Johnson & Johnson, Amgen, and several others are, reportedly, availing such services for quite some time, with a significant return.

These custom-made digital services, as reported, could be many, such as, e-marketing, remote detailing, multi-channel interaction management, online video, mobile, and smart device detailing, besides permission-based email and targeted advertising services to name a few. Thus, reckon, while considering a hybrid pharma sales and marketing model, outsourcing of digital sales and marketing is worth pondering, especially in India with so much of talents in this area.

Conclusion: 

It is important to note that unlike many other fields, hybrid models of pharma sales and marketing, don’t just involve Work from Home (WFH). For this critical transformation drug companies would need first to create a commensurate organizational ecosystem to take on board all individuals in the hybrid workforce. The aim is to deliver differentiated deliverables in the marketplace with an expected return.

As I see around, building a hybrid sales and marketing model in-house from the very beginning could be more challenging, especially for mid-size companies due to various reasons. Outsourcing the non-traditional digital part of this initiative may add speed and exponential value, if the selection is right.

Either way, the pharma leaders, I guess, are already witnessing increasing intricacies in the traditional role of field staff. It needs to be resolved, soon – undoubtedly.

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.

 

To Allay Customers’ New Apprehensions Pharma Needs A New Conversation

Posted on by
Reply

Since the beginning of 2020, witnessing the rapid spread of Covid pandemic with very high global fatality rate – virtually the entire global populations – directly or indirectly, have been looking up to the health care industry for help. This, of course, includes the drug industry – with high expectations of people on deliverables, blended with palpable apprehensions on what’s happening around.

Amid the wave after wave attack of Covid-19, many have realized that there will neither be any quick-fix or immediate solution to tame the virus. As India goes through the Covid 2.0 catastrophe, while waiting for Covid 3.0, a similar situation prevails in the country – with a sense of lurking fear for future uncertainties, slowly but steadily creeping in.

Thus, an unprecedented public expectation for speedy disentanglement of Covid-19 disruptions, confer a huge responsibility to all health care providers and entities, such as, the drug industry, which will be my key focus in this article. Just as any extraordinary situation calls for extraordinary initiatives, this national tragedy also demands from pharma professionals to start a new and proactive conversation, driven by ‘out of-box’ thinking.

I shall explore in this article, in which areas pharma needs to roll out a new conversation to meet with new expectations of its stakeholders, formed during the Covid Pandemic. This engagement needs to go beyond drugs and vaccines, spanning across key contemporary developments that are bothering pharma customers. The aim should be to help customers visualize a brighter horizon based on scientific reasons, in not-too-distant future, such as:

  • How several pharma companies are taking novel initiatives, as a part of their corporate objectives to save lives and livelihoods, faster.
  • How pharma players are thinking ‘out of the box’ to allay Covid related public apprehensions and neutralizing gross misinformation on Covid cure – based on scientific reasons, often selectively deploying their staff members.

In this regard, let me start with a recent advice of a top pharma veteran of global repute, especially on political and public expectations of ‘the endpoint’ for successful prevention and effective treatment of Covid-19 infections.

When focus is on ‘the end point – the price point’, it needs pharma’s attention:

Former CEO of Novartis Joe Jimenez – Ex-Novartis CEO and CEO & Cofounder of Aditum Bio, advised the same in an interview with Reuters Events, published on April 06, 2021. Although this was against the backdrop of the United States, the same is applicable to India, as well.

There, Jimenez said: “And I think the political focus in the United States is too often on the end point, the price point, which definitely needs attention, but not enough on the whole pipeline. And that absolutely needs attention and can bring down the price point at the end of the day.”

“It’s the pharmaceutical industry’s responsibility to show how their drug can lower total costs through the system, whether it’s reducing hospitalization or whether it is reducing other health care costs and comorbidities that lead to ever increasing budgets. If the industry focuses on that, I think I think that’s going to result in better launch success in the next few years,” he added.

However, there is another endpoint – of equal importance, especially in the Covid-19 prevention and the treatment process.

The other end point is equally important, as there may be an extended need for Covid vaccines: 

Wider access to Covid drugs and vaccines is another political and general public’s ‘end point’ of expectations, besides price. As I wrote in my previous article, on October 02, 2021, India and South Africa had proposed at the WTO about an IP waiver for Covid-19 drugs and vaccines to resolve the issues of access and affordability for these products.

Thereafter, on May 05, 2021, the United States also issued a statement supporting the IP waiver for Covid-19 vaccines at the WTO, in its ‘service of ending this pandemic.’ As reported on May 13, 2021, even China now backs the drugs and vaccine IP waiver at the WTO.

Patent waiver for Covid drugs and vaccines make sense for the coming years, especially, in view of the reports that ‘Pfizer, Regeneron CEOs see extended need for COVID-19 vaccines, treatments as pandemic enters the next phase.’ Adding that the data stressed a “need” for re-vaccinations, the Pfizer CEO said, while protection remains high for those six months, it does “go down by time.” Thus, the need for Covid vaccine may continue to remain as important as of date, to prevent the pandemic over, at least, a couple of years, if not beyond.

That apart, some interesting developments followed soon – coincidentally or otherwise.

Meanwhile, some pharma companies responded with laudable initiatives: 

Presumably, for wider availability and affordability of Covid drugs and vaccines, several pharma players alone or in association with governments, took some laudable initiatives. A few examples are, as follows:

  • On May 10, 2021, BioNTech, which has partnered with Pfizer to produce its COVID-19 vaccine, said it plans to set up a new manufacturing site in Singapore, with a capacity to produce several hundred million doses of mRNA-based vaccine.
  • As reported on the same day, as above, Eli Lilly promised to supply India with thousands of tablets of baricitinib for hospitalized COVID-19 patients. It also pledged to sign a royalty-free, non-exclusive voluntary licensing agreements with Cipla, Lupin and Sun Pharma—to expand baricitinib’s availability in the country. Notably, in this month itself, the DCGI has authorized baricitinib plus remdesivir combo for emergency use of ‘hospitalized patients requiring supplemental oxygen, invasive mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).’ Baricitinib has also faced a shortage of during the Covid 2.0 surge.
  • As per reports of May 12, 2021: ‘The US is looking at joint production of Johnson and Johnson’s Covid vaccine in India and ways to help manufacturers like Serum Institute of India (SII) to boost production,’

Pharma’s new role to allay public apprehensions in many Covid related areas:

In this complex scenario, various public apprehensions on Covid vaccines and drugs, need to be explained with scientific evidence – in a common man’s language. These include frequent changes in the dosage interval between two doses of some vaccines, whereas for other vaccines there isn’t any change in this area. Or why in India even within a group of fully vaccinated individuals, wearing masks or maintaining social distancing norms are necessary, when these requirements have been relaxed for fully vaccinated people in the United States. Or, when reports like: ‘Covid Cases Double In World’s Most-Vaccinated Nation, Raising Concerns,’ add fuel to the fire of public apprehensions in this regard.

Drug companies, especially those who are engaged in the global battle against Covid-19 – in their research lab, product development process, including clinical trials, can play an additional stellar role in this area, too. With ‘out of the box ideas’ for Covid related public engagement, they can scientifically respond to all public apprehensions with scientific reasons, in a simple language, on what is happening around most people, nowadays. Selective deployment of their own staff members can also make the initiative more meaningful.

This conversation may also include, science-based response to some bizarre claims of ‘Covid cure’ – from religious leaders having significant followers, and even by Union Ministers, without hurting their feelings or sentiments. These ‘advices’ were widely circulated by the mainstream global and local media, including the Wall Street Journal.

For example, one such report said: The president of a century-old religious organization declared that “consuming cow urine and cow dung will stop the effect of infectious coronavirus.” The swami added that a “person who chants ‘om namah shivay’ and applies cow dung” on his body “will be saved.” However, it was also reported that ‘Indian doctors warn against cow dung as Covid cure.’ Similar advice in different forms, even by elected politicians, keeps misguiding many unsuspected members of the public.

Conclusion:

A series of Covid related contemporary needs and apprehensions, besides the traditional ones are surfacing. These are to be mitigated, on an ongoing basis. Pharma players – individually and collectively, instead of being always reactive, may wish to volunteer to proactively address these issues to help people move in the right direction.

As Covid appears to be a medium to long-haul battle – unlike most other pandemics, pharma companies need to think ‘out of the box’ to create innovative – new – and proactive conversation models in this space. In turn, the initiatives will help them win long-term trust and loyalty of customers – that will always remain as invaluable assets, fueling sustainable growth in business.

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.

 

Shape of Future Pharma Operations – Emerging A Pragmatic Outlook?

Posted on by
Reply

Just as newer reports come almost every day on safety, efficacy, dosage interval or span of immunity of Covid vaccines, similar reports are also reaching us about the possible future shape of pharma sales and marketing operations. Some hardcore optimists, apparently more from India, still believe that current changes in pharma customer behavior are mostly transient. All business processes will eventually fall in their traditional grooves, as the Covid menace disappears from our lives soon.

No doubt, several studies are also bringing out a number of respondent doctors’ preferences on reverting to F2F engagements, programs and events. Nonetheless, most other experts, including several large global pharma majors, believe that the future shape of business operations won’t be quite the same as the past. There are better ways to be more effective, leveraging the changing environment. Accordingly, they have initiated actions, reimagining the pathway of new operational frontiers. In this article, I shall explore the evolving pragmatic outlook in just two of these action areas:

  • The new and unique role of medical representatives
  • Digital health care solutions as a new growth opportunity

New role of medical representatives:

A recent survey published by Reuters Events Pharma on December 18, 2020, revealed that 30% of the respondents still expect that Medical Reps’ (MR) face-to-face access to HCPs would return to the status quo ante of Covid pandemic restrictions. However, a majority of 70% felt that the old normal is unlikely return as such. The study also brought out that the size and disposition of sales teams are under review by many of pharma players and smaller field forces look likely, as the industry moves on.

My personal experience with the Indian Pharma Industry sources suggests, when a Covid pandemic wave starts finding its peak, the feeling of the above 70% prevails. However, when the same wave climbs down from its peak to a transient trough, a large number of Indian companies and experts tend to feel somewhat akin to what the above 30% expressed in the Reuters Events Pharma survey. The process gets repeated with the emergence of the next wave.

Alongside, as the above survey also finds out, most physicians are no longer expecting – brand-driven high sales pitches, during any MR-Doctor interaction or the engagement process. Instead, they are increasingly looking for insights – in an integrated, personalized and value-driven interactions with the Reps.

Considering this as a trend of over last one year or so, it is likely that MR-doctor interactions will now need to be on digital and omnichannel platforms to deliver a personalized and value driven an experience to the customers. In this environment, the field force may be smaller in size than what it used to be in early 2020 but will have a unique new role to play. This process will come with a new challenge, especially to those inbred companies, who are still undecided about the road ahead for business excellence, in the new normal.

Three new pharma leadership challenges:

Apparently, a large number of domestic drug companies, irrespective of size and scale of operations still feel comfortable to be in the old comfort zone that had propelled the business in a growth trajectory. Most pharma sales and marketing staff members, at several levels, have grown within the industry, consistently delivering high performance.

This situation by itself, as the above research paper revealed, poses three fresh challenges for many companies to make their field-staff ready to play a unique and fresh role in e-marketing. Thus, the three new knots to untie in the virtual world, are the following:

  • Currently, most MRs are not proficient in selling in virtually,
  • They are being led by people who have also never sold virtually,
  • They are being trained by people who also have never sold virtually.

MRs will continue to have a role to play even in the digital world:

To overcome the above challenges, today’s reality prompts new L&D needs of pharma’s new e-environment. And from this perspective, I think, they would need professional domain experts’ hand-holding, at least, in the transition phase of digital marketing. Some companies have initiated this process for greater sales force effectiveness, since 2019. A recent example in this area may be quoted from a report on October 01, 2019.

The article highlights, ‘AstraZeneca sales reps have some new help in the coaching department, resulting improved interactions and better development of sales reps’ strengths. While leaders still manage reps, artificial intelligence—in the form of data generated from thousands of field-coaching forms—now adds machine-learned analysis and advice.’

Thus, it is worth noting that MRs will continue to play an important role, alongside remote digital marketing using omnichannel or multi-channel engagement platforms. The same also came out clearly in the latest study from healthcare consultancy ZoomRx, reported on April 08, 2021, where its findings raised an important question - ‘Did pharma overshoot digital sales rep calls?’ This dilemma was prompted by the study charts reflecting a decline in its effectiveness, during this specific survey period.

Thus, in my opinion, a hybrid business model for better performance will be more effective in the new normal. However, ascertaining the right mix of digital and MR’s in-person interactions, may pose a challenge for many pharma marketers.

Entry into digital health solutions – an opportunity for growth: 

Before Covid pandemic, digital therapeutics or digital health solutions were not an unknown area for several pharma companies, as a growth booster in the modern world. But, it wasn’t explored so intensively as it is being discussed today, for the same. A recent paper titled, ‘Digital health during COVID-19: lessons from operationalizing new models of care in ophthalmology,’ published in The Lancet on February 01, 2021, vindicates this point.

The paper emphasized, due to Covid pandemic ‘the traditional face-to-face patient–physician care model has had to be re-examined in many countries, with digital technology and new models of care being rapidly deployed to meet the various challenges of the pandemic.’ It further highlighted, these new models incorporate digital health solutions such as telehealth, AI based decision support for triaging, besides clinical care, and home monitoring.

Global pharma majors, such as Novartis, have publicly acknowledged on January 21, 202 that ‘digital innovation looks set to dominate the 2021 healthcare agenda.’ The statement said, COVID-19 was a catalyst for change in healthcare during 2020 and an accelerator for digital health. Similarly, 2021 looks set to continue the revolution – exploiting ‘an explosion of interest, traction and scale’ in the potential for digital solutions. These would not only support remote working, but also keep the very fabric of business, healthcare, education, and essential services in operation.

Other important and recent examples of digital health care solutions: 

Witnessing the COVID-19 pandemic pushing more people toward virtual doctor visits over the last one year, AstraZeneca, as reported on April 06, 2021, is preparing for it in the new normal, through a novel project with Massachusetts General Hospital. The Company is now in the process of establishing and validating its ‘recently launched digital health platform, designed to help patients with chronic illnesses manage their conditions without stepping foot into the academic medical center’s clinic.’

Similarly, several other companies, are also investing to be early entrants with user friendly state of the art technology in this space. Interestingly, many of these ventures were reported during March and April 2021.

Conclusion:

Arthur Miller’s play ‘Death of a Salesman,’ broadly addressed the loss of identity and a man’s inability to accept change within himself and society. Although, the book depicts a larger philosophical perspective of life – many pointed out similar issues in the drug industry perspective, as well.

Nonetheless, many studies have established, pharma MRs have been effectively delivering, since long, the endpoint deliverables, as expected of them – sales. However, the question that still haunts many – can this core process be re-imagined for greater efficiency and effectiveness at a lesser cost, harnessing modern technology. An article, published in the Pharmaphorum on March 11, 2011, has also suggested – ‘in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is an even greater need to re-examine the rep’s role. How can a field force evolve to deal with current challenges and be future-fit for the way we will be working in the post-pandemic world?’ 

There is no confusion today that MRs’ will have a key role to play in pharma’s digital endeavor. However, the key purpose of having them has evolved during the pandemic. Such as, from being an efficient way to achieve personal communication objectives – to be an orchestrator for physicians to navigate the difficult landscape, providing them a differentiated service. For this purpose, I reckon, a hybrid business model for better performance, will be more effective in the new normal, while quickly adapting to digital transformation. However, arriving at the right mix of digital and MR’s in-person interactions, may pose a challenge for many pharma marketers, as it will be a company-specific need.

Similarly, the criticality of leveraging opportunities to provide remote delivery of digital health care solutions to patients, has also come onto the radar of many pharma players, during this difficult time. Several players have already added this area as a lucrative business expansion platform – many more are expected to follow. Thus, in my view, the fast-evolving data-based trends are now giving a pragmatic shape to future pharma operations – especially on the new and unique role of medical representatives and the relevance of digital health care solutions, as a growth opportunity.

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.

Still Evolving: Pharma’s New Pathway For Digital And F2F Customer Engagement

Posted on by
Reply

Last year – probably left with no better choice – the pharma industry, in general, had to take an unprecedented interest in digitalization of business processes. It happened faster than ever, especially in the marketing domain, along with a few others. Large research studies, across the world have vindicated this point. However, such digital transformation initiatives of last one year, is far from getting over. These are still like a work in progress. Primarily because, the extent of sudden changes in healthcare customer behavior, overall business environment and market dynamics, are still unfolding – slowly and gradually, though.

Consequently, the future drug marketing roadmap for the ongoing journey isn’t clear, just yet, especially in the area of striking a critical balance between virtual F2F (Face to Face) and in-person F2F customer engagements. Which is why, ascertaining the extent of personalization of customer contacts, customer-centric content development and their preference-based channel selection, may take more time. Accordingly, the framework of a strategic blueprint will need to be continuously updated during 2021, based on robust data.

Charting and analyzing the trend for each critical interface related to customer contacts – based on credible data, has already been initiated by renowned professional agencies. The findings of the same are also started trickling in. Some of which are on the expected line thinking, whereas a few others aren’t so expected, by many.

In this article, I shall dwell on some of these critical trends related to striking a right balance between virtual F2F and in-person F2F customer engagements for commercial excellence in 2021 and beyond. The purpose is to encourage marketers for keeping eyes on the ball, always. This is critical while formulating robust digital marketing strategies – charting a new pathway for reps’ digital empowerment – from here on. Let me start by quoting an important research study.

Digital initiatives helped staying relevant in uncertain times:

Several other research studies, including the Veeva study on ‘Industry-wide digital acceleration’, published on September 23, 2020, highlighted pharma’s digital efforts to stay relevant during a year-long uncertain times, like the last year. Even today, the industry’s digital channels, mostly related to customer engagement, like doctors and patients, are drawing similar importance of the top management.

The research underscored, healthcare sectors in emerging countries, such as India, Vietnam, Indonesia and China are increasingly relying on digital return in a post-pandemic world. Interestingly, digital engagement has now unlocked access even to those healthcare professionals who were declining F2F access to many pharma companies.

‘Slow return of in-person interactions’ – what does it mean?

While the increasing use of digital channels in customer engagement was true during last year, the recent APAC Veeva Pulse Data also shows signs of a slow return of in-person interactions. The top 5 therapeutic areas that have started to reopen include:

  • Respiratory,
  • Cancer,
  • Infection,
  • Diabetes and
  • Cardiovascular.

The study shows that F2F interactions dropped dramatically between February and April 2020 but increased back to pre-COVID numbers by July 2020. Curiously, at the same time, virtual engagements and meetings also continued to increase significantly. Thus, the question to ponder and address properly is – If in-person F2F interaction is increasing alongside digital, what would it mean for healthcare engagement while moving forward?’

Is it a signal for the hybrid customer engagement model in the future?

While doctors are realizing the benefits and ease of user-friendly digital engagement, this may not mean that virtual visits, meeting and engagements are replacing F2F in-person interactions, lock-stock and barrel.

Thus, it now needs to be established by more and larger studies, whether a customer engagement model with an optimal mix of digital and F2F in-person engagements can be more effective for better commercial outcomes, now and in the days ahead. The point that needs to be ascertained first is – what will this optimal mix be – between digital and F2F, which I reckon, will differ from company to company – mostly based on therapy areas they represent. 

F2F engagements may increase from the past year, but not as old normal:

Except initial turbulence, with incredible resilience the pharma industry navigated through the choppy environment during the pandemic, with the skillful application of digital technology. The most recent Veeva article, published on January 07, 2021 captures this point.

It articulated, with companies continue expanding digitalization to accelerate cost-efficient commercial operations and yielding greater productivity, the new operating models will reshape the industry and drive powerful transformation for years to come. It is, therefore, unlikely that the traditional ways of in-person F2F engagement with doctors, patients and other stakeholders will come back soon in its old avatar, if at all.

Increasing scope for a two-way digital engagement with pharma customers:

Veeva Pulse data also observed the initiation of pharma’s two-way digital engagement with health care customers last year and an expanded potential of the same in the current year and thereafter.

Although, virtual meetings increased more than eightfold and rep-sent digital communication by sevenfold since January 2020, these channels have primarily been used for outbound customer engagement.

This leaves some untapped opportunities to explore, by creating new inbound digital customer-engagement channels. The aim is to make it easier for doctors and patients have greater access to companies, its reps or designated individuals, for information and services that they may want. Most importantly, this has to be – as they need it – when they need it – and the way they would prefer having it. Inbound digital engagement channels will also demonstrate a greater company focus on ‘customer-centricity’.

Expanding towards inbound digital engagement for customers has started:

This shift prompts a change in the traditional mindset of pharma marketing leadership. The process will be gradual, ongoing and having a bias on contemporary customer needs. The steps to follow should preferably be initiate – evaluate – expand, while taking every significant step.

For example, as reported by Fierce Pharma on February 08, 2021, global pharma major Novartis is aiming to personalize its interactions with healthcare professionals and deliver “what they need in real time” to support their decision-making process. Novartis, reportedly, is also setting out to change the way that they are “interacting with not only physicians, but healthcare systems, and how they think about the patient journey.”

F2F shifts from ‘in-person interaction for all’ to ‘as per customer preference’: 

Be that as it may, pharma’s digital strategy requires to be craftily woven with the company’s field-strategy. Thus, the reps must be digitally well trained in delivering brand values consistently, across digital channels and platforms, as recent studies indicate.

Far from traditional F2F field sales models of in-person meetings for all doctors, the hybrid F2F model requires personalized engagement, based on customer preferences. Some customers may prefer reps to engage only through digital channels, whereas many others may like a mix of virtual and in-person engagements. With the expanding reach of digital technology for all, these preferences will keep changing with time.

Conclusion:

In 2021 and thereafter, accelerating digitization of critical pharma domains, such as marketing, is expected to reduce operational costs and boost operational efficiencies. In tandem, it will help gain deeper insight into customer behavior and market dynamics, fueled by newly acquired digital capabilities. These include, faster generation of customized data or collation of relevant and credible information collected from multiple sources, and their error-free prompt analysis. In addition, prudent application of digital technology in all selected areas by astute pharma professionals, will help reduce, if not totally eliminate, currently practiced and human error-prone, mostly repetitive manual processes.

The pan industry shift toward digital channels is here to stay and is expected to accelerate further for other strategic reasons too, such as, to add more flexibility in attaining greater efficiency and effectiveness for customer engagement. It goes without saying that factoring-in all such key success factors, companies will draw their respective current and future digital marketing strategies. That said, recent data indicate, customer engagement may call for a mix of virtual and in-person F2F engagements. The same report highlights that going back to the old normal of in-person F2F engagements for all doctors could probably be a far cry. Similarly, the initial success of e-customer engagement is unlikely to replace in-person and in-clinic F2F engagements of sales reps completely.

However, the point to note is that the industry scenario in this area is still evolving. Currently published trends indicate, different customers, like doctors, patients and hospitals, will have different preferences of engagement with drug companies, in different communication platforms. Thus, pharma’s new marketing pathway, as discussed above, will entail striking an optimal balance between digital and F2F customer engagement, which will vary from company to company based on several critical factors.

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.

 

Covid Prompts Pharma To Move Away From Competition Driven Business Model

Posted on by
Reply

As deliberated in my just previous article in this blog, Covid has been a watershed in several areas of pharma business. One such key area is its competition driven strategic business model. It aims to deliver significant value for a longer time than the competition, protected by a patent thicket driven TINA factor – and only for those who can afford such patented drugs. It didn’t matter, if a vast majority of patients are denied access to these medicines, with a dangerous pricing trend acting as an insurmountable barrier. Flying solo has been the motto of most players in this ball game, to delight the stock markets.

Interestingly, Covid pandemic seems to be changing this model. Pharma industry, by and large, is now trying to demonstrate its core value for the society – moving away from displaying competition driven one-upmanship. In this article, I shall deliberate on this area.

Covid poses both – a humongous challenge and a great opportunity:

As the article, published in the MIT Sloan Management Review on April 16, 2020 highlights: ‘The COVID-19 pandemic may well prove to be the biggest challenge for humankind since World War II.’ The same holds good for the pharma industry, as well. The drug companies are now expected by all, to play a pivotal role in the fight against the pandemic ‘that is bringing health care systems to their knees and sending shock waves through economies across the globe.’

This is generally because, pharma industry possesses wherewithal to develop effective drugs and vaccines to combat this health crisis – if not alone, but certainly collectively. It also offers a great opportunity for pharma to ‘walk the talk,’ by demonstrating upfront that meeting all patients’ unmet needs lie at the core of the pharma business. As I quoted a global CEO in one of my articles articulating, this crisis also comes as ‘a Shot at Redemption in Pharma Industry.’

Thus, if the industry reacts quickly and responsibly, it may have the chance to also redeem a reputation that’s been tarnished for years. Some of these instances are, illegal marketing practices, corruption scandals, and obscene pricing of vital drugs, the MIT Sloan article underscored. Flying solo in this situation may not be just enough, if not foolhardy.

Flying solo in this situation may not be enough:

Taking this initiative won’t be a piece of cake, either, if pharma companies prefer to do it alone during this unprecedented health crisis.  The drug players will need to be willing and able to successfully collaborate with other players in the race to develop treatments and vaccines. Otherwise, their legitimacy will be fundamentally questioned, especially when the entire world is running against time.

The rationale of two top drug companies entering into collaborative arrangements is obvious – the realization that pooling of all resources together is the best way of delivering effective Covid related solutions to the society at the shortest possible time. The good news is, pharma has already taken the first step in this direction, even when some of them are competitors, in several areas – moving away from their competition driven business models, as of now.

Once strange bedfellows – now partners:

The article published in the Bloomberg Law on June 05, 2020 very aptly observed: ‘The race to address the pandemic has brought together strange bedfellows as big-name companies’ partner with their rivals.’ The Scientist also wrote on July 13, 2020: ‘The urgent need for tests and therapeutics has brought companies together and pushed researchers to work at breakneck speeds.’

One can find this happening on the  ground now, as some major pharma and biotech companies, including Eli Lilly, Novartis, Gilead, and AstraZeneca, formed a group called COVID R&D to share resources and expertise to try to accelerate the development of effective therapies and vaccines for COVID-19. Besides, Roche Holding AG and Gilead Sciences Inc. have teamed up on trials for a drug combination to treat Covid-19.

There are several instances of such collaboration also in the Covid vaccine area. For example, GlaxoSmithKline plc struck a deal with Sanofi to produce 1 billion doses of a coronavirus vaccine booster. Besides, Pfizer from the US and BioNTech from Germany are joining hands to co-develop and distribute a potential Coronavirus vaccine, aimed at preventing COVID-19 infection.

It’s a reality today that Covid-19 has brought not just the strange bedfellows within pharma and biotech companies together. Academia and governments have also moved on to the same collaborative platforms, to save people from a deadly and super contagious infection, in the shortest possible time. We have witnessed this

in India, as well. For example, the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) and Aurobindo Pharma Limited have also announced a collaboration to develop vaccines to protect against SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19.

The rationale and some possible issues: 

Each of these players is bringing some expertise and intellectual property to the table. “As they work together, they’re going to create more, so you have the ‘yours,’ the ‘mine,’ and the ‘ours’ of collaboration,” as the Bloomberg Law points out. That said, any collaboration of such nature and scale will have its own share of legal issues, such as, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, revenue sharing models, and more.

The collaborators, in pursuit of saving mankind from Covid-19, are expected to find enough alternatives to resolve these glitches for a win-win outcome – not just for now, but much beyond – with the dawn of a new collaborative model. The rapid general acceptance of this collaborative model by more and more drug companies to meet unmet medical needs in many other areas – much faster, in all probability, will delight the health care consumers and also be appropriately rewarded.

Leveraging the collaborative business model beyond pandemic:

E that as it may, it still remains an open question to many, whether such collaborative model will be leveraged for an accelerated rate of drug, vaccine and diagnostics development beyond the pandemic.

The good news is, as The Scientist article reported, some pharma players are seriously pondering how to continue working in this new way – with the same sense of urgency and purpose, for other disease areas too. They believe, the lessons being learned with the collaborative models, may help expedite development of therapeutics in other serious conditions, such as, Alzheimer’s, intractable cancers and autoimmune diseases.

If and when it happens as a predominant business model, suffering patients and the society, in general, would lap it up and the innovators would be suitably rewarded. However, the paper also says, there are still some drug companies who prefer to continue working in a more insular fashion, as was happening in the old normal. But, experts also feel, that should not cause any worry, as long as majority prefers to continue following the collaborative models, in the new normal, as well.

Pharma would make a good profit from collaborative business models too:

For those who say that drug companies won’t make good profit from Covid drugs and vaccines, Pfizer CEO has an answer. Albert Bourla, Pfizer’s CEO, reportedly, has no patience for the argument that pharmaceutical companies should not be making a profit on the drugs and vaccines they introduce to fight Covid-19. This article highlights, at $19.50 per dose, the 1.3 billion doses of Pfizer BioNTech Covid vaccine that the Pfizer plans to make by the end of next year, could translate to nearly $13 billion in sales, after the company splits its revenue with its partner BioNTech. It is roughly the same as Pfizer’s all-time best-selling drug Lipitor sold in its best year.

Adding to it, another article on the same issue, published by Fierce Pharma on August 13, 2020, further reinforced the above expectation. It wrote, the longtime Evercore ISI pharma analyst haspredicted the total market for COVID-19 vaccines would be worth $100 billion in sales and $40 billion in post-tax profits. It assumed frontrunner Moderna would supply about 40 percent of the market, Novavax would take 20 percent and the other vaccine developers would split the rest. “One could look at the field under this base scenario and conclude it is reasonably valued in total,” the analyst concluded.

Nonetheless, there could still be several points that remained unanswered in this analysis. But the bottom line is, the collaborative model is not just profitable, it starts generating profit earlier and faster – virtually eliminating the cost of possible delays when a company flies solo.

Conclusion:

With a seemingly flattening curve, the Covid pandemic still continues, alarmingly. As of October 25, 2020 morning, India recorded a staggering figure of 7,864,811 of Coronavirus cases with 118,567 deaths.

With this backdrop, COVID-19 has provided the pharma industry a new opportunity to demonstrate its true value to the society – not the self-serving ones. It’s now clear that no one can rule out, there won’t be a similar unprecedented health catastrophe in the future too. It may come in various different forms, or may even be from a rapid and complex mutation of the same lethal virus.

Moreover, such crisis may not come and go in just a few months – may even linger for a long time. In any case, these may again be equally disruptive – or even more disruptive to lives, livelihoods and the economic growth engine. In such a scenario, putting the brightest scientific brains of the world together will be critical, and adding top speed to the process being the essence to come out of the crisis with least possible damages.

Covid pandemic has also demonstrated that the competition-based model of the drug could be a serious retarding force in that endeavor. What will matter, is a well-structured collaborative model that can create a win-win situation – both for patients and the business. I reckon, it’s about time to move into this model to find most effective drugs and treatment solutions for many other unmet needs related to a host of intractable diseases, much sooner.

There could, of course, be some business issues with this model. But those can be resolved amicably for an all-weather greater success in business, along with protecting the society – for all. From this overall perspective, it appears, Covid pandemic now sends a strong signal to pharma companies to move away from predominantly competition driven business models, expanding more into collaborative ones.

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 Sales Post Covid-19 Lockdown

Posted on by
Reply

Disruptions from Covid-19 pandemic have caused limited access to physicians for Pfizer’s marketing and sales teams have had. If ‘the novel Coronavirus pandemic hamstringing the company’s sales team,’ there could be a slowdown in new prescriptions and a sales hit in the second quarter, said the global CEO of Pfizer, on April 28, 2020. He further said, ‘new prescriptions for a range of its products will decline as patients continue avoiding in-office physician visits.’

Pfizer is not only the company facing such situation. In fact, the entire pharma industry is encountering a tough headwind for the same reason. However, being very specific on the quantum of sales hit – on the same day, ‘Merck, with a heavy presence in physician-administered drugs’, predicted an adverse impact of US$ 2.1Billion on sales, from COVID-19.

Physical absence of, virtually the entire pharma field force in the field for strict compliance of social distancing during the lockdown period, causing a crippling effect on the new prescription demand generation activity. This possibility was hardly imagined by anyone in the industry. Which is why, the current situation is too challenging for pharma sales and marketing leadership teams to respond, with a sustainable strategic approach. Moreover, most of them don’t yet seem to be accustomed with charting any pivotal demand generation activity, sans field force.

Further, the meaning of ‘Patient-Centricity’ in the post lockdown period – still maintaining ‘social distancing’ norms, is expected to undergo considerable changes. This may include development of newer health care practices for many customers, which they started practicing during the lockdown period. However, no one can exactly predict, as on date, whether such changes will continue for a long term, as we move on. In this article, I shall deliberate on a likely scenario in the pharma selling space post Covid-19 outbreak, based on research studies. This is primarily because Covid-19 could be with us for a long time.

Covid-19 could be with us for a long time:

As reported, on the day 35 into the world’s largest lockdown, India, reportedly, was failing to see an easing of new cases similar to what hot spots such as Spain and Italy have recently experienced with more intensive Covid-19 outbreaks. Even today, the scale and duration of the pandemic are very uncertain, so will be the necessity of maintaining social or physical distancing guidelines. This possibility gets vindicated by what the Director General of the World Organization said on April 22, 2020: ‘Make no mistake: we have a long way to go. This virus will be with us for a long time.’ Thus, shutdowns in different forms, is expected to continue for some time in India.

‘Covid-19 pandemic to last for minimum two years’ with its consequent fallout also on the pharma industry:I

Interestingly, ‘India began its containment measures on March 25, when its outbreak showed only 564 cases.’ As on May 03, 2020, the recorded Coronavirus cases in India have sharply climbed to 39,980 and 1,323 deaths. India is now expected to prepare exiting the 54-day lockdown in phases from May 17, 2020, with a few limited relaxations even before that date. However, as the BBC news of April 9, 2020 also points out, the country may not afford to lift the lockdown totally – everywhere, for everyone and for all the time, anytime soon, for obvious reasons.

The April 30, 2020 report from the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, confirms this situation. It says: ‘The Coronavirus pandemic is likely to last as long as two years and won’t be controlled until about two-thirds of the world’s population is immune.’ This is because of the ability to spread from asymptomatic people, which is harder to control than influenza, the cause of most pandemics in recent history. Thus, the Coronavirus pandemic is likely to continue in waves that could last beyond 2022, the authors said.

Many countries around the world are already facing similar issues for exiting Covid-19 lockdown. It has been observed that easing the lockdown is a tricky policy choice, as it triggers a fresh wave of infection, as recently happened in advanced countries, such as, Singapore and several other nations.

It is, therefore, clear now that shutdowns need to continue in different forms in India as different waves of Covid-19 infections strike, in tandem with scaling up of requisite testing and health infrastructure to manage those outbreaks, effectively.  Consequently, its impact on the pharma industry is likely to continue with its unforeseen fallout, prompting the same old question, yet again, why the oldest commercial model remains pivotal in the pharma industry.

The oldest commercial model remains pivotal in the pharma industry:

About a couple of years ago from now, an interesting article of IQVIA, titled, ‘Channel Preference Versus Promotional Reality,’ highlighted an important fact. It said, one of the oldest commercial models of using medical or sales representatives to generate product demand through personal communication with each doctor, and other key stakeholders, is still practiced in the pharma industry, both as a primary medium and also to communicate the message.

The same model continues in the pharma industry, regardless of several fundamental challenges in the business environment. Curiously, erosion of similar models in many other industries, such as financial and other services, in favor of various highly effective contemporary platforms, is clearly visible. Some of these fundamental challenges involve an increasing number of both, the healthcare professionals and also patients they treat, moving online.

This has been happening since some time – long before Covid-19 outbreak. Today, many patients want contemporary information on the disease-treatment process, available alternatives and the cost involved with each. These patients also want to communicate with their peers on the disease for the same reasons, before they take a final decision on what exactly they would like to follow. A similar trend is visible, at a much larger scale, with medical professionals, including top drug prescribers.

Healthcare customers’ increasing digital preference was captured well before the Covid-19 outbreak:

The rise of digital communication as a global phenomenon, was deliberated in the June 04, 2019 ‘Whitepaper’ of IQVIA, titled ‘The Power of Remote Personal Interactions.’ It captured an increasing digital preference of healthcare customers much before Covid-19 outbreak. For example, according to IQVIA Channel Dynamics data1, there was a 26 percent decline in total contact minutes for face-to-face detailing in Europe, since 2011.

Another 2018 IQVIA survey reported, 65 percent to 85 percent of representatives were saying that access to physicians is becoming harder. The paper also indicated that the rise of digital and multichannel communication with healthcare professionals has been far from uniform across countries, with Japan leading the world, followed by the United States.

India is an emerging power in the digital space, today. Thus, I reckon, it has immense opportunity to leverage digital platforms in healthcare, especially to effectively address the current void in the demand generation activity of drug companies. The key question that needs to be answered: Are pharma customers developing new habits during, at least, the 54-day national lockdown period?

‘It takes about 18 days to 254 days for people to form a new habit’:

According to a study, titled ‘How are habits formed: Modelling habit formation in the real world,’ published on July 16, 2009, in the European Journal of Social Psychology, it takes anywhere from 18 days to 254 days for people to form a new habit. Thus, changing preferences of many healthcare consumers, including doctors and patients, at least, in the 40-day period of national lockdown in India, may trigger a change in habits of many patients. This change may further evolve over a period a time.

Such changes would demand a new and comprehensive ‘Patient-Centric’ approach from pharma players, as well, having a clear insight on the dynamics of the changes. Gaining data-based insight on the same, pharma sales and marketing leadership would need to develop a grand strategy to deliver ‘patient-group’ specific desired outcomes. One of these approaches could be, triggering non-personal sales promotion on digital platforms.

Triggering non-personal sales promotion on digital platforms:

Dealing with future uncertainty calls for non-conventional and innovative strategies, such as, generating brand prescription effectively even without personal promotion. Thus, to tide over the current crisis, triggering non-personal sales promotion on digital platforms, appears to be the name of the game. In a 2018 IQVIA survey, looking at the multi-channel landscape in life sciences, 54 percent of the 250 respondents from pharma and biotech were found already using virtual interactions, such as e-Detailing, or were planning to assess the approach.

What is required now is to rejuvenate the initiative, with a sense of great urgency. Covid-19 pandemic has the possibility and potential to expedite a strong pull in this direction, responding to a new ‘customer-centric’ approach, as prompted by the evolving scenario, triggered during the 54-day long stringent lockdown period. This is especially considering the fact that it takes about 18 days to 254 days for people to form a new habit.

Further, as Bloomberg reported on May 02, 2020, “coming up with a vaccine to halt Covid-19, in a matter of months isn’t the only colossal challenge. The next big test: getting billions of doses to every corner of the world at a time when countries increasingly are putting their own interests first,” which may take quite time.

Conclusion:

One thing for sure, the sudden outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic has made all ongoing and robust strategic business plans somewhat topsy-turvy. Most pharma companies were compelled to floor the break-pedal of several business operations, including prescription demand generation activity of field sales forces, during the lockdown period.

At this time, many healthcare consumers, including patients, tried various remote access digital platforms to continue with their treatment or for a new treatment of common ailments, besides procurement of medicines. Two primary drivers, in combination with each other, prompted those individuals to try out the digital mode. One, of course, the stringent lockdown norms, and the other being the fear of contracting Covid-19 infection, if the prescribed personal distancing standards are breached – just in case.

This position may lead to two possibilities – one, involving the patients and the doctors and the other, involving field staff/doctors/hospitals/retailers, etc. During, at least, the 54-day long lockdown period, if not even beyond May 17, 2020 – those patients may develop a sense of convenience with the digital platforms. This may lead to a new habit forming, which has the potential to create a snowballing effect on others – through word-of-mouth communication. The process may signal a shift on what ‘Patient-Centricity’ currently means to the pharma players.

The other one, I reckon, involves with the continuation of strict social or physical distancing norms for an indefinite period. This could seriously limit field-staff movement and meeting with the doctors, hospitals/retailers, besides many others, and more importantly would lead to a significant escalation of cost per call. The question, therefore, is: Will pharma selling remain as before, post Covid-19 lockdown? Most probably not. If so, a new task is cut out, especially for the Indian pharma leadership team, to chart a new ‘Patient-Centric’ digital pathway, in pursuit of sustainable business excellence.

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.

Any Threat To Current Commercial Model Of ‘Gene Therapy’?

Posted on by
Reply

Wish All My Readers A Very Happy, Healthy, Peaceful and Prosperous 2020

 

One of the most complex areas in disease management, is the ailments related to genetic disorders. As these were incurable, over the last four decades, medical researchers are engaged in understanding the complex and intricate process to modify human DNA, using viruses for treatment. This painstaking initiative led to the evolution of ‘gene therapy’ which, according to Mayo Clinic, ‘involves altering the genes inside human body’s cells in an effort to treat or stop the disease.’ In that process, ‘gene therapy’ replaces a faulty gene or adds a new gene, to cure a disease or improve the human body’s ability to safely and effectively treat dreaded ailments, such as cancer, cystic fibrosis, heart disease, diabetes, hemophilia and AIDS, it further added.

Several studies, e.g., one titled ‘Gene therapy on the move,’ published in the EMBO Molecular Medicine highlighted, the first gene therapy clinical trials were initiated more than two decades ago. However, initially many of these were impeded by the occurrence of severe side effects in a few treated patients. Nevertheless, over a period of time, ‘highly efficient gene targeting strategies and site-directed gene editing technologies have been developed and applied clinically.’ With over hundreds of clinical trials to date, gene therapy has moved from a vision to clinical reality – offering a powerful treatment option for the correction of monogenic disorders.

It is believed that in the new millennium, ‘gene therapy’ has emerged as one of biotech’s momentous success stories for curing many genetic disorders, which were once considered incurable. But, the cost of ‘gene therapy’ treatment is indeed jaw-dropping – ranging ‘from about US$ 500,000 to US$ 1.5m. And for treatment over a lifetime, some drugs can cost as much as US$ 750,000 in the first year, followed by US$ 375,000 a year after that – for life.

Since, I have already deliberated on ‘gene therapy’ price and associated moral dilemma that it causes, in this article, I shall focus on different concerns that could pose a threat to its ongoing commercial model. Nevertheless, let’s start with the current scenario on ‘gene therapy,’ for better understanding of the issue.

The current scenario:

According to McKinsey & Company’s October 2019 article - ‘Gene therapy coming of age’ - till 2019, the primary focus in development of ‘gene therapy’ has been on monogenic rare diseases with all currently approved therapeutics falling into this category. It is worth noting, rare diseases tend to have clear genomic targets, as well as, high unmet need in a very small patient population, who have generally been under-served by other, more traditional, therapeutic modalities (including monoclonal antibodies)—making them ideal targets for gene therapies.

More than 150 investigational new drug applications were filed for gene therapy in 2018 alone. With this in mind, McKinsey & Company expects this market to grow significantly, with ten to 20 cell and gene therapy approvals per year over the next five years.

Major ‘gene therapy’ launched:

If one takes a broad look at the ‘gene therapy’ treatments launched so far, which I have compiled from different sources, it may appear as follows.

Gene Therapy Company Country Launch Year Indication Price ($M) Current status
Glybera UniQure Europe(EMA) 2012 Pancreatitis caused by absence of a gene - lipoprotein lipase, affecting about 14 people per year in Europe 1.0 Withdrawn (unaffordable)
Strimvels GSK Europe (EMA) 2016 To treat ADA-SCID patients (rare disease) 0.665 Sold to Orchard Therapeutics. Only 5 patients were treated.
Kymriah(CAR-T therapy) Novartis USA 2017 Acute lymphoblastic leukemia 0.475
Yescarta(CAR-T therapy) Kite Pharma USA 2017 Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma 0.373 Gilead acquired Kite Pharma in August 2017 for 11.9 billion dollars
Luxturna  Spark   2017 Rare disease called RPE65 mutation-associated retinal dystrophy. 0.850 for both eyes Novartis is paying $105M up front for the ex-US rights.

The latest being Zolgensma of Novartis. It was approved by USFDA on May 24, 2019 for ‘patients less than 2 years of age with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) with bi-allelic mutations in the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene.’ It costs US$ 2.125 million in the US for a one-time treatment.

However, to get a better idea on the industry focus in this area, let us look at the current ‘gene therapy’ pipeline.

Current ‘gene therapy’ pipeline:

To fathom the extent of industry interest in ‘gene therapy’ let’s have a glance at the depth of its pipeline – both in terms of phase-wise clinical study, as well as therapy areas covered. This will help understand the concerns that could pose a threat to its ongoing commercial model.

Clinical Trial Phase Total by phase    Therapy Areas:HematologyOncologySensory OrgansInternal MedicinesOthers
I 574
II 520
III 205
Filed/Approved/Marketed 237
Total 1536

Adapted from: McKinsey article – ‘Gene therapy coming of age’, October 2019

Both large and small companies are entering into the fray:

Besides Novartis and GSK, as mentioned above, other Big Pharma constituents, such as Pfizer, Roche, Gilead and Bristol-Myers Squibb - are also putting their money in developing ‘gene therapy.’ This includes Mergers and Acquisitions too. For example:

Alongside, newer ‘gene therapy’ platforms continue to come up, many funded by venture capitals – further enriching the ‘gene therapy’ pipeline. In tandem, fresh concerns that could pose a serious threat to the ongoing commercial model of ‘gene therapy’ are also being realized. Mainly, the impact of the one-time or curative version of such avant-garde therapy on current pharma business models.

Also facilitates a giant leap towards personalized medicine:

‘Gene therapy’ is also believed to be a giant leap of medical science towards personalized medicine. This is because, in addition to repairing and replacing defective or missing genes of a human body, this therapy can use body’s own cellular immune system to treat the disease. This is because, CAR-T cell therapy can fall in the category of personalized medicine, where a patient’s T cells are changed in the laboratory, empowering them to attack cancer cells.

Concerns that could threaten its ongoing commercial model:

Despite its significant patient-value offerings with long-term benefits, ‘gene therapies’ that have been approved and are already in the market had to confront with tough unforeseen challenges, both from fresh regulatory questions - to therapy withdrawal for commercial reasons. These developments, coupled with a very low and difficult to identify patient population, and affordability related low market access, prompt the need of a transformed marketing model for novel ‘gene therapy.’ This is important for financial sustainability of current ‘gene therapies’ in most pharma markets, globally, including the United States.

Some critical areas:

An article on ‘gene therapy’ by the Managing Directors of L.E.K Consulting, published by Cell & Gene on May 16, 2019, also pointed to some of these critical areas. Even this paper articulated, the fundamental value proposition of ‘gene therapy’, its long-term efficacy with a single-dose treatment, gives rise to a number of unique challenges for its manufacturing companies. Let me paraphrase below just three of those, as I understand, to drive home this point.

Declining number of eligible patients for most doctors: 

The promise of a functional cure is expected to limit ‘gene therapies’ to a single dose per patient, in most cases. Thus, inability to re-treat would lead such therapies to deplete their addressable prevalent populations, for most doctors. This is primarily because, as the number of treated patient accumulates – the number of potential patients who could be treated in a given year is reduced. This leads to demand that would peak early before steadily declining. Once the prevalent population is depleted, the demand for a gene therapy would be driven by incident patients.

However, research has now been initiated targeting larger populations – e.g., those suffering from leukemia and lymphomas. But, the greatest revenue potential for ‘gene therapy’, is expected to be its success in delivering life-changing treatment outcomes in multiple myeloma. When such patients will get to experience better outcomes from cell and gene therapies, the incremental approach the industry has been taking in this area, will be more than justified.

Till then, it could pose a challenge to business sustainability:

As discussed, the ‘gene therapy’ sales curve with an early peak and then steady decline, caused by a depleted addressable patient population within a few years after launch, could pose a serious challenge to business sustainability. This would require launching, possibly another ‘gene therapy’ product before the revenue of the first ‘gene therapy’ starts waning. Consequently, the timing of its life cycle management efforts and subsequent launches would be a critical success factor.

Intricacy of market access dynamics:

Optimal market access of ‘gene therapy’ will call for working in unison with virtually all stakeholders, including regulators, governments, and at the same time, effectively disseminating the real-life treatment-success stories. However, both in the developed countries and also in the emerging markets, such as India, its treatment cost will continue to remain a key barrier, sans some disruptive pricing strategy.

How this tough task remains unresolved, can be sensed from the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) report of December 19, 2019 titled, ‘Novartis to Offer World’s Most Expensive Drug for Free Via Lottery.’ For this purpose, Novartis launched a lottery-style program to provide doses of its pricey gene therapy for Zolgensma, a one-shot ‘gene therapy’ cure, for free of charge. But, this approach drew criticism from patient groups that called it – an inappropriate way to distribute a lifesaving treatment aimed at babies for a deadly inherited disease whose victims cannot control their muscles. At a price of US$ 2.1 million, Zolgensma, is the world’s most expensive drug.

Conclusion:

As I discussed above, ‘gene therapy’, also known as ‘human gene transfer,’ has been one of biotech’s momentous success stories in the new millennium, paving the way for a cure of many genetic disorders – once considered incurable. However, the number of patients on ‘gene therapy’ remains small compared to other therapeutic regimens, mainly because of two factors. One – this therapy, mostly targets rare diseases, and the second – even among those small patient populations, only very few can afford such pricey therapy.

Nevertheless, current research in this complex area, is now targeting larger populations – suffering from leukemia, lymphomas and multiple myeloma. Success in these areas will open the door of significantly greater revenue potential for ‘gene therapy’ by delivering life-changing treatment outcomes. Till then, its current business model, I reckon, would continue to pose a high commercial risk to this venture.

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.

Drug Pricing: Why Justify On R&D Cost Rather Than Precise ‘Customer Value’?

Posted on by
Reply

While looking around, it won’t be difficult to spot many types of steep-priced highly innovative products, where high costs aren’t justified by high R&D expenditure, but for unique ‘customer value’ offerings. Many consumers evaluate those and decide to settle for one, instead of opting for cheaper variants – delivering the basic customer requirements in that product class or category. Although, both pharma and electronic goods belong to high tech-based knowledge industries, similar examples are in plenty of the latter, but hardly any in pharma.

Agreed that pharma is a highly regulated industry, unlike electronic goods. But so are banks, financial services, airlines, telecommunication, among many others. Interestingly, all these industries are building great brands without talking about their investment costs in R&D, while doing so.

In this article, I shall focus on – despite facing a formidable headwind, mostly for the same, pharma industry, in general, continue to lack in two critical areas of brand building. But, before doing that let me quote from some recent research papers wondering, how is this situation continuing unchanged, despite all concerned being aware of it.

Two opposing views:

Just to recap, let me put below, two diametrically opposing views that continue to clash with each one, since long:

  • New and innovative drug costs being excessive, globally, lowering their prices will not harm the progress of innovation.
  • Drug industry argues, any restriction of free pricing of innovative drugs, will seriously jeopardize innovation of newer medicines and treatments.

So much of divergence in the views of two key partners within the industry, can’t just continue any longer, without a serious intervention of governments across the world, including the United States.

Pharma does want to talk about ‘Cost & Value of Medicines’. But…

It’s not that pharma doesn’t want to talk about ‘Value of Medicines,’ but not, apparently, to create an ‘emotional connect’ with its stakeholders, including the patients. It appears, more as a general justification for the high cost of new drugs. For example, a pharma trade association’s communication, after acknowledging ‘that many are struggling to access the medicine they need,’ says upfront: ‘Discussions about costs are important.’ It follows a series of much-repeated common justifications, which are no- brainer, such as:

  • Medicines Help Patients Avoid Expensive Hospital Services,
  • Developing New Treatments and Cures is a Complex and Risky Undertaking,
  • Medicines are Transforming the Treatment of Devastating Diseases.

But, the reality is, these justifications are not working on the ground, as these are not quite in sync with ‘customers’ value’ expectations, both from the company as well from the brand. Moreover, instead of establishing an ‘emotional connect’, this approach probably is further alienating many stakeholders, as several governments are now broaching the issue of price control, or some other mechanism to set drug prices.

Pharma marketers need to be eclectic:

Instead of keep following the age-old marketing and communication models, young pharma marketers need to be empowered to be eclectic. They should look around and try to fathom how is ‘marketing,’ as a business domain, changing in other fast-growing industries, and act accordingly. As pharma is a high-tech knowledge industry, let me draw examples from other similar industries, such one that innovates and manufactures electronic products.

Unlike any high-priced, high-tech electronic product companies, such as Google, Apple or Microsoft – pharma marketing communications are more like ‘justification’ centric, for charging high prices for medicines. This approach, apparently, is not just a bit defensive, but virtually negative. Whereas, unlike drug manufacturers, the above tech companies are constantly focusing on the following two areas, for creating a robust ‘corporate brand’ that infuses consumer-trust in each of their products:

  • Establishing ‘emotional connects’ with customers
  • Focusing on the total value of unique value offerings, rather than the high cost of innovation to justify high prices

Let me deliberate briefly on each of the above two.

The importance of establishing ‘emotional connects’ with customers:

With the penetration of technology, almost in every household, with a varying degree, though, access to a gamut of information becomes increasingly easy, so are the options available to customers. This is impacting almost every industry, including pharma and healthcare.

Thus, for corporate performance excellence, customers are now creating a space for themselves at the core of the pharma business strategy. Consequently, a need arises for the pharma marketers to enhance end-to-end customer experience. Besides, brand value offerings, this includes both short and long-term customer service offerings to ensure an ongoing emotional connect with customers, for more intense and longer-lasting engagement with trust, both on the ‘corporate brand’ and also on individual products.

Therefore, creating effective ‘emotional connects’ with customers are assuming a cutting-edge strategic importance – in multiple facets of pharma business. More ‘emotionally connected’ customers also act as a force-multiplier to enhance corporate reputation. Although, it mostly happens through word of mouth, in recent days, value added omnichannel communication by respective companies, is playing a crucial role for success in this area.

In the good old days, reaching patients or patient groups directly, would have been a challenging proposition. Most communications on products, diseases and treatments, used to be through healthcare providers. But, this is no longer so, especially in the digital world, that opened a new spectacle of opportunities for crafting patient-centric strategies – as patients become more digital-savvy, too.

Focus on brand value offerings, not on cost of innovation to justify high prices:

To dwell in this area, a series of questions that one may possibly encounter, such as: ‘How do you define value? can you measure it? What are your products and services actually worth to customers?’ Way back, these points were deliberated in the article – ‘Business Marketing: Understand What Customers Value,’ published in the November-December 1998 issue of the Harvard Business Review (HBR). It said: ‘Value in business markets is the worth in monetary terms of the technical, economic, service, and social benefits a customer company receives in exchange for the price it pays for a market offering.’ From this paper let me pick up just two critical components of value, as follows, for better understanding:

  • Value in monetary terms: Such as, dollars per unit
  • Value for a customer: What the person gets in exchange for the price it pays

Nevertheless, the important point to note: As ‘market offering has two elemental characteristics: its value and its price, raising or lowering the price of a market offering does not change the value that such an offering provides to a customer. Rather, it changes the customer’s incentive to purchase that market offering.’

When applied in the pharma perspective:

When the above concept of value is applied in the pharma industry perspective, it vindicates an important. Which is, tangible value offerings of an exclusive, high-priced patented products, and the same in its off-patent low-priced avatar remains unchanged, regardless of significant change in its monetary value per unit. However, unlike a patent protected drug, options for generic equivalents will be many, with differing prices.

This brings out another important facet of ‘value’. As the above HBR paper states, considerations of value take place within some context. Even when no comparable market offerings exist, there is always a competitive alternative. For example, in the pharma business, one possible competitive alternative for patented products could well be – when the Government decides to issue a Compulsory License (CL) for make the product available at a cheaper price to patients.

The name of the new game:

Thus, for an exclusive new drug, instead of focusing on cost of innovation to justify high prices, a sharp focus on ‘total value offering’ of the brand would possibly be the name of the new game. It will entail persuading the ‘connected customers’ to realize the total value of both the tangible and intangible cost of each benefit that the product offers, rather than simply the cost of a pill. In doing so, a pharma marketer and his entire team, must have an accurate understanding of what its customers value, and also, would value. This calls for a painstaking research, and a mammoth real time data analysis.

Developing a unique ‘Customer Value’ model:

As the above HBR article reiterates, ‘customer value’ models are not easy to develop. Unfortunately, pharma’s ‘value delivery system’ is still tuned to a self-serving mode and not ‘customer value’ centric.Thus, marketers may wish to note some key points in this regard, as below:

  • Many customers understand their own requirements, but do not necessarily know what fulfilling those requirements is worth to them.
  • This leaves an opportunity to demonstrate persuasively, the total ‘customer value’ that the new brand provides, and how it fulfills their requirements.
  • The strategy makers would have to necessarily generate a comprehensive list of ‘customer value’ elements, based on robust data, on an ongoing basis.
  • The acquired insight on – what customers value, and would value, to gain marketplace advantages over competitors, would form the core of the business strategy.

The next stage would be a pilot study to validate the model and understand the variations, if any, in the estimates. It is also vital to note that an improvement in some functionality may appear important, but may not necessarily mean that customers are willing to pay for it. The aim should always be delivering superior value, and get an equitable return for it. Thus, enhancing end-to-end customer experience in this effort, becomes a critical ingredient to brand success.

Conclusion:

After the article – ‘Business Marketing: Understand What Customers Value,’ published in the November-December 1998 issue of the Harvard Business Review (HBR), in June 2000, a similar article was published in the ‘McKinsey Quarterly.’ The paper titled, ‘A business is a value delivery system,’ also emphasized the importance of a clear, well-articulated “value proposition” for each targeted market segment.

This means a simple statement of benefits that the company intends to provide to each segment, along with the approximate price the company will charge for each of those. The paper also underlined, the strength of the buying proposition for any customer is a function of the product value minus the price. In other words, the ‘surplus value’ that the customer will enjoy, once that product is paid for.

Over a period of time, high prices of new and innovative drugs are attracting negative headlines, like - ‘High cost of hepatitis drug reflects a broken pricing system.’ This continues, despite high decibel justification of the ‘exorbitant’ cost of innovation. Undaunted, Big Pharma and its large trade associations remain reluctant to jettison their old advocacy toolkit.

They seem to be still on a – ‘Listen and believe what we are saying’ mode. This is vindicated by the December 14, 2019 report that revealed: ‘The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the drug industry’s top lobbying group, filed a lawsuit this week against the state of Oregon, claiming two laws it passed requiring greater transparency of drug prices are unconstitutional.’

Continuation of such approaches, on the contrary, is further alienating many stakeholders, especially the patients and the governments. Thus, time appears more than ripe today to focus more on delivering measurable ‘surplus value’ of new products, to well engaged and connected patients, both globally and locally.

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.