Tag Archives: Patients

Creative Pharma Marketers To Unshackle Covid Fetters

Posted on by
Reply

Pharma industry, just as most others, has started recognizing that the business needs to be brought back to normal, despite Covid fetters. Some early evidences suggest, a new breed of pharma marketers is refusing to get confined to Covid triggered operational limits, without breaching any prescribed safety norms.

These pacesetters no longer grapple with finding right answers to the question – when and how the brand building activities can be brought back to the old normal? Truly speaking, none has its answer, as yet. Covid has the power to strike back, anytime – anywhere, in waves, when the guards are even slightly down. Moreover, as and when vaccines will come, these may not be ‘silver bullets’ for many – throughout a lifetime, at least, in the foreseeable future.

Accordingly, these forerunners are effectively leveraging the art of turning challenges into opportunities. They are conceptualizing new business models for making path-breaking progress in contemporary purpose driven branding exercises. For all pharma marketers, I reckon, this is the moment of truth, when what you do reflects what you really are, in this area. Thus, in this article. I shall deliberate, with examples, how these creative new age pharma marketers are trying to unshackle Covid fetters.

Today’s reality on the ground: 

A number of global surveys on how patients’ have reacted to Covid-19 pandemic with reasons behind the same, are now available. One such study was conducted by Medisafe, during March and April, 2020. Some of its key findings are as follows:

  • More than half of the respondents, especially those with comorbidities, worry about getting Covid infected while accessing to in-person treatments.
  • Over 9 out of 10 respondents were practicing social distancing, as a remedial measure.
  • Consequently, they are missing doctors’ appointments, and many are opting for telehealth wherever appropriate and necessary.

In many situations, such as,  common and repetitive health issues, including some mental health conditions, virtual health care are more convenient. It has also been established during the pandemic that telehealth can deliver similar outcomes at a lower cost, than in-person visits. In addition, remote monitoring of some key health parameters, like heart rhythm, blood sugar, weight, respiratory rate, also help people control their chronic conditions better, and assist clinicians with diagnosis and treatment.

More doctors prefer telehealth, but the majority wants some in-person visits too: 

An interesting study – ‘Want Both In-Person and Virtual Visits with Sales Reps,’ published by Bain & Company on June 02, 2020, ferreted out today’s reality, in this space. It found, prior to Covid, about three-fourths of physicians preferred face-to-face engagement with sales reps. In contrast, today more of them are asking for a reduction in Rep visit frequency and more remote support or virtual approaches. Curiously, a majority still prefers, at least some in-person interaction ‘once the pandemic passes.’

Interestingly, no one seems to know, just yet, when exactly will this pandemic get over. Besides, whether or not Covid will keep coming back in waves, for an indefinite period. Or, any similar or even worse global health crisis, in future, could bring greater disruption for the industry.

Driven by such apprehensions, it is possible that more and more patients will prefer telehealth, expanding access to health care for an increasing number of people. Nonetheless, one should also take into consideration that virtual health care has also some significant limitations, especially those which may lead to serious or life-threatening conditions.

Some key limitations to overcome:

Alongside multiple advantages of telehealth, it has some significant limitations, which can’t be wished away, either. This point was also well articulated in the article – ‘Where Telemedicine Falls Short,’ published in the Harvard Business Review (HBR) on June 30, 2020. The author, who is also a primary care physician gave a number of examples in this regard. For example, in one place he wrote:

‘I have found treatable cancers multiple times in routine exams that would be impossible to replicate in the virtual world. Could a Zoom visit detect a lymph node too firm, a spleen or liver too large, or an unexpected prostate nodule (with a normal PSA)?’ The paper also emphasized: ‘Trust and face-to-face encounters are even more important for patients with complex and intertwined problems.’

Be that as it may, the task to encourage patients, even with serious ailments, for in-person consultation and examination by doctors’ in their clinics, won’t be ‘a piece of cake’ too. On the contrary, it will be rather a colossal exercise.

Why will this task be colossal?

One can get a sense of tough challenges involved in this effort from the IQVIA report titled, ‘COVID-19 Pandemic and the Impact on SEA Healthcare Market.’ Along with other areas, the study captured several details of the above area, specifically for the South East Asia (SEA), as follows:

  • Decrease in patient visits (Out-Patient): 2 out of 3 hospital doctors are experiencing >60% decrease in patient visits.
  • Extended period of time before patient load resumes to normal: ~50% of doctors think that it will take 4 to 6 months to resume normal operations.
  • Increase in prescription duration: ~25% of doctors have 2x their standard prescription duration to reduce patient visits.

The study also observed, ‘in order to reduce the risk of getting infected, patients are reducing their visits to the HCPs.’ Such an unusual situation is unlikely to be mitigated, soon, with any traditional or ‘one size-fits all’ type strategy. Particularly when Covid threat still looms large on the population. As is happening today, even after signs of waning, Covid may return in waves – for an indefinite period. Thus, innovative marketing interventions, backed by actionable insights, are essential to help overcome the fear of getting Covid infected, by both patients and doctors.

How to respond to this situation in a creative way?

The creative marketing response to overcoming the possible barriers on the way, would call for predictive rather than reactive pharma strategies. The game plan not only needs to be purpose drivenfor the marketers, but should also be perceived that way by all concerned. For example, the core purpose of marketing in this scenario, will be to provide a life-saving patient ‘service’, with win-win outcomes.

And the additional ‘service’ in this case is encouragement in-person physician visits during early symptoms of life-threatening health conditions – taking all safety precautions and overcoming ‘paranoia’ of getting infected. The win-win outcomes will include – saving lives, preventing deterioration of the disease condition, and of course, facilitation of the brand demand. The good news is some global pharma majors have already started making progress in this direction.

Promoting doctor visits during the pandemic – an example:

Leaving footprints to follow, some pharma marketers have already started creatively working on it. Let me cite a recent example of this unique initiative. This was reported by Fierce Pharma in its November 02, 2020 issue. The marketing process carries all the required ingredients for excellence, as mentioned above.

It wrote, ‘Pfizer and Bristol Myers Squibb are the latest drugmakers to join the swell of campaigns promoting doctor visits during the pandemic.’ This decision was based on data, showing many people haven’t been going to their primary care appointments for symptoms that may lead to potentially serious conditions.

This initiative is focused on three critical health conditions, namely, atrial fibrillation, deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. The rationale for selecting these three indications is, these are all treated by the partners’ anticoagulant Eliquis.

Accordingly, the BMS-Pfizer Alliance launched a campaign to raise awareness and encourage people to seek prompt medical attention. The American campaign was built around the theme – ‘Your symptoms could mean something serious, so this is no time to wait.’ In tandem, the companies also widely communicated through multiple channels that ‘Decreases in Americans’ Primary Care Visits May Lead to Late Diagnoses of Potentially Serious Conditions.’

According to reports, the net result of this creative marketing, so far, is no less than outstanding, as compared to many other pharma players operating in similar situations. ‘Eliquis’ brand sales for the first six months of 2020 topped $4.8 billion, a 21% increase over the same time period last year. Doesn’t this initiative demonstrate that creative pharma marketers can unshackle even Covid fetters?

Conclusion:

Meanwhile, as on November 08, 2020 morning, India recorded a staggering figure of 8,507,754 of Coronavirus cases with 126,162 deaths. The average number of daily new cases appeared to have slowed down in the last few weeks. But, the threat of further spread of Covid infection, in waves, still looms large in the country.

Most scientists agree – while effective vaccines offer the best chance of reaching zero COVID-19 – eliminating the virus across much of the world, while not unthinkable, could take a significant number of years. Thus, it may be realistic for some time to focus on flattening the curve with stringent control measures, involving efficient contact tracing, testing and isolation, together with social distancing and mask wearing – till it happens, ultimately.

Meanwhile, the business must flourish, even amid a new normal. And this is, in no way, a pipe dream, but a proven reality, as we have seen above. No doubt, this calls for most pharma marketers wearing a fresh thinking cap, equipped with more cerebral power, as it were, to unshackle Covid fetters on their way – effectively.

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.

 

Shift from Disease Centered Care To Patient-Goals Directed Care In The New Normal

Posted on by
Reply

In the initial days of the first quarter of 2020, no one could fathom that just within the next 4 months over two million fellow citizens will get infected by an unknown virus, recording over 45,500 deaths. Many authorities may wish to project or analyze these Covid-19 numbers in so many different ways. Nevertheless, the fact remains, currently, in passing each day India is recording the highest count of fresh Covid-19 cases in the world, alongside the most daily deaths from the virus.

In the early days of Covid19 in India, many expected a remedial pathway to emerge soon – conventional or unconventional. Accordingly, Indian citizens across the country responded to the call of some national leaders by observing some – even unconventional measures, such as:

  • On March 22, 2014, to “boost morale” of doctors and public workers, as urged by the Indian Prime Minister, many people banged pots and pans on balconies across India.
  • On April 05, 2020, again responding to the Prime Minister’s passionate call, a large number of Indians turned off lights, lighted candles and Diyas hoping to dispel COVID-19 darkness.
  • On May 02, 2020, as organized by the Government, the country’s armed forces engaged in a nationwide exercise to express gratitude to doctors, paramedics, sanitation staff and other front-line workers involved in fighting the Coronavirus pandemic.

Gradually, the stark reality sank in, as the old normal faded out in the horizon. Public expectations arguably started shifting from heavenly interventions, as it were, to science-based measures. It has now been generally accepted that there is no alternative to social distancing and wearing a mask at the public places. These should continue, till the ‘silver bullet’ – vaccines arrive. More so, when going for herd immunity “cannot be a strategic choice or option,” given the size of India’s population, as the Government said.

Billions of people have now started hoping for the ‘silver bullet’ to come soon. This sky-high expectation continues to be fueled by media hype – based primarily by the Press Releases of the concerned companies. In the midst of these, comes a word of caution from the apex health body of the world. As recent as August 03, 2020, the World Health Organization (W.H.O) announced, ‘despite strong hopes for a vaccine, there might never be a “silver bullet” for COVID-19, and the road to normality would be long.’

To add some degree of certainty in this humongous – primarily scientific and logistical challenge to save lives, – pharma and biotech industry, as usual, are coming to the forefront. Billions of eyeballs are now glued on to them – following every bit of what they are saying – as the devastating impact of this health catastrophe is profound. Besides individual health, the fall-out of the pandemic is intimately intertwined with livelihoods, nation’s economy, social fabric and adjusting to the new way of living, including new mechanisms for most transactions.

Obviously, this would create a new normal – quite different from the old one – and naturally would include pharma business, as well. In this scenario, patients will assume a much different status, especially in the disease treatment process. More patients would likely to prefer their individual health-goals directed holistic care, which calls for a holistic disease treatment solution. The process needs to be contactless as far as practicable, less time intensive and above all cost effective

In this article, let me focus on this area. I reckon, many pharma players are also evaluating the impact of this shift to achieve business excellence in the new normal.

The current treatment approach and the pharma focus:

A recent paper, published in the JAMA Cardiology on the April 2016, made some interesting observations in this area. Citing cardiology disease area as an example, the authors noted the following, among other points:

  • Physicians’ decision-making process generally ‘concentrates on disease-specific outcomes, following practice guidelines for specific conditions.’
  • Value-based purchasing also largely focus on individual diseases.
  • However, disease-centered framework is ill-suited for persons with multiple chronic conditions, including older adults and the majority of adult health care users of all ages.
  • Disease-centered decision-making results in treatment burden when patients must adhere to multiple guidelines and harm when guideline recommendations conflict.
  • Furthermore, disease-centered recommendations may not address what matters most to these patients – varying health priorities.

The shortcomings of this approach from the patients’ perspectives, besides adding greater value for patients, prompt a need for change. From the current disease-oriented treatment approach, and pharma’s business-related focus in sync with this system.

Habit of visiting specialists at the very beginning complicates the process:

The disease-oriented treatment approach, as it is today, isn’t a legacy issue. In the good old days, General Practitioners (GP) used to examine their patients thoroughly – covering the entire body. Thereafter, depending on the specific areas of need, expert interventions used to be recommended.

However, todays well-informed people, equipped with health information of all kinds, can possibly figure out the broad outline of their health problems. Accordingly, many of them directly arrange appointment with specialists. As most of them are generally not terribly wrong in figuring out the problem areas, specialists’ treatment progresses in the same direction. Other existing health issues, not being of high priority treatment areas for persons concerned, could remain ignored, till these also flare up.

Undoubtedly this approach, even if is made ‘patient-centric’, in a broader sense, by pharma players, would cost more time, more money to patients. Besides, loss of income and increase in morbidity. This is certainly an avoidable situation for all – patients, doctors and pharma companies.

Go beyond ‘patient-centricity’ encompassing ‘patient-goals directed care’:  

The new focus should be directed towards ‘patient-goals directed care.’ This approach, which flows from a very old and a classic concept of  Sir William Osler articulated in the 19th century. This remains as relevant today for any holistic - ‘patient-goals directed care.’ It goes way beyond much hyped ‘patient-centric’ approach.

Sir William Osler once said, “The good physician treats the disease; the great physician treats the patient who has the disease.” The great physician understands the patient and the context of that patient’s illness. Accordingly, I reckon, pharma players new focus needs to be in conformance to this concept. It fits in so well with changing patients’ expectations in the new normal.

As has been evaluated in many studies, although, patient-goals directed care may appear to be particularly useful for persons with multiple chronic conditions, ‘this approach works across the age and health span, making it a compelling path toward value-based care from the patient’s perspective.’

‘Each patient represents a story’ which needs to be carefully deciphered: 

The article – ‘To Be a Great Physician, You Must Understand the Whole Story,’ published in the Medscape General Medicine on March 26, 2007, elucidated the point nicely. It said, each patient represents a story, which includes their diseases, their new problem, their social situation, and their beliefs. A physician needs to understand this story. Accordingly, perform a targeted physical examination based on the historical clues, order the correct diagnostic tests, and interpret them in the context of the history and physical exam. Once the appropriate data are collected, the patient’s story needs to be revisited, based on scientific data.

Revisiting process of the patients’ story includes making the correct diagnosis or diagnoses. The story must reveal the patient’s context – Who is this patient? – What is the patient’s goal? – How might the patient’s personal situation impact the treatment options? And more – as the above article highlights.

Each patient’s story’ is important for pharma companies, as well:

Patients’ disease related stories are of crucial importance to the pharma players, as well, for strategic reasons. Not just to gain insights on the disease manifestation process, but more importantly to facilitate a company’s engagement with them.

Another interesting article has brought out some more important issues in this area. The paper is titled, ‘Patient Centricity and Pharmaceutical Companies: Is It Feasible?’ It was published by the SAGE Journals on March 28, 2017, where the authors underscored, engagement with patients can only be possible, if there is credibility. Elaborating this point, the paper cited two GSK examples aimed at building trust with patients and physicians, as follows:

  • Change in marketing practices: In 2011, GSK eliminated prescription sales targets in the US and introduced a new incentive model for sales and marketing practices based on value and feedback from prescribers; external speakers/ convention travel support was discontinued (2016).
  • Clinical transparency: Since 2013 GSK has committed to promote transparency of clinical research and is a leading example in the pharmaceutical industry—it was the first company to grant access to anonymized patient data. The ‘All trial campaign (2013)’ commits to publishing all trial data; the GSK patient-level data access site has become a multi-sponsored portal (2014).

Conclusion:

As of August 09, 2020 morning, the recorded Coronavirus cases in India have crossed a staggering 2 billion mark, reaching 2,153,10 with 43,452 deaths. The figure keeps climbing – faster than expected, unabated.

The business relevance for a shift from the conventional disease centered care to patient-goals directed care, require deep understanding of the top pharma leadership along with its very purpose, in the new normal. Patients deserve this now, more than ever before, as explained above.

In my view, a changing mindset to align pharma business strategy – from providing a disease-oriented care to patient-goals directed care, is expected to improve patient outcomes manifold. Nevertheless, like what the above SAGE article emphasized, the organization at its end would require defining collectively and with clarity – why is this change now? How it is to be done – step by step?  And what are the results the company aims to achieve?

Consequently, it would help create a large pool of delighted and company loyal customers having strong ‘word of mouth’ advantages. Top pharma leadership’s ‘buying in’ this concept, with an appropriate organizational structure in place, would herald a new dawn of ‘Patient Value-Based Care’ – Convid-19 pandemic notwithstanding.

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-19 Drugs: Accessibility, Affordability And Availability

Posted on by
Reply

Covid-19 continues refusing to unravel the key to neutralize its destructive power – for bringing human life and the socioeconomic fabric of a country back to the old normal again. Just as India, all other countries are, apparently, awaiting a ‘magic bullet’ to come, breaking the shackles of this labyrinth, so to speak.

General expectation is, all concerned will understand that coming out of the new Coronavirus maze, sooner, at any cost – is the only way to bring back life, livelihoods, social fabric and the national economy on to the rail, again. Consequently, every entity in the world would require making moderate sacrifices in this unprecedented endeavor.

Right at this time, accessibility, affordability and availability of emergency use Covid-19 drugs, for various reasons, are going beyond the reach of a large number of the population who need those the most. This is happening not just beyond the shores of India, but in the country, as well, perhaps much more than expected. Interestingly, the issue pertains more to Covid-10 repurposed older drugs, and not so much for vaccines – just yet, as I shall deliberate below.

In this article, I shall focus on this issue, hoping for a reversal of the current trend through active involvement of the both the drug company leadership, and also the national decision makers to safeguard public health interest. Interestingly, the drug pricing issue, mostly with repurposed older drugs, is both global and local. Thus, let me first dwell on the subject of drug price increases during this global public health emergency.

Drug price increases during a global public health emergency: 

According to the July 08, 2020 report of IHS Markit, prices of critical drugs are increasing at a time when they are needed the most, as the governments and individual patients potentially struggle to pay for them.

The findings brought to the fore, prices for the 10 most critical drugs to treat COVID-19 have risen a highly unusual 4 percent globally, during the crisis. The cost for over half of these essential COVID-19 medicines rose across 80 countries between February and June 2020. Let me illustrate this point with one example each of Covid-19 emergency treatment options, starting with the global outcry for the same.

Global skepticism on remdesivir pricing:

As the world anxiously awaits a Covid-19 vaccine to hit the market, an experimental repurposed older drug – remdesivir of Gilead Sciences Inc. was introduced as an emergency treatment option for this infection. Pending detail clinical trial results, currently the drug has received only emergency regulatory approvals with an expectation that it may shorten the recovery period in some severely ill Covid-19 patients.

Gilead Sciences, on June 29, 2020, announced its price of $2,340 for a typical treatment course for people covered by government health programs in the United States and other developed countries.However, it will cost $3,120 for patients with private insurance. This price was swiftly and widely criticized, because the drug has received at least $70 million in public funding toward its development - the report highlighted.

Elaborating what would be affordable pricing for this drug in the developed world, another reportquoted the watchdog group – Public Citizen. This group maintains $1 per day is fair. It points to a cost-recovery model developed by the University of Liverpool, which calculated that the cost of manufacturing remdesivir at scale would be 93 cents per dose, leaving the remainder as, in its view, “a reasonable profit to Gilead,” as the report underscored.

Interestingly, analysts expect Gilead to make $525 million on remdesivir sales this year and $2.1 billion next year. This isn’t the first time Gilead is facing public criticism on life saving drug pricing. Just to recap, in 2013, the company also received ‘brickbats’ for its $84,000 price tag for groundbreaking hepatitis C treatment Sovaldi—followed up by its combo pill Harvoni, priced at $94,500. But those were first in class new and innovative drugs. Nevertheless, the remdesivir pricing issue is viewed differently, because it is not just a repurposed older drug, but indicated to combat a global public health crisis.

Let me now give an Indian example on a similar issue, but with a different anti-Covid-19 drug.

Criticism in India with Covid- 19 drug pricing: 

The Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) had on June19, 2020 approved anti-viral drug favipiravir, manufactured in India by Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. This approval was for “restricted emergency use” of the drug in mild to moderate cases of COVID-19 in the country, in view of the urgent medical need during the pandemic. Favipiravir is made under the brand name Avigan by Japan’s Fujifilm Holdings Corp and was approved for use as an anti-flu drug there in 2014.

According to media reports, Glenmark launched the drug on June 20, 2020 with the brand name FabiFlu at a price of Rs 103 per tablet. On this pricing issue, a member of the Indian Parliament, reportedly, made a representation to the DCGI stating, as a patient has to take 122 tablets of the drug in 14 days, the total cost of the treatment will come to around Rs 12,500. The M.P argued, “price quoted for this drug is definitely not affordable to the common people,” and ‘is definitely not in the interest of the poor, lower middle class and middle-class people of India.’ Additionally, the submission mentioned that ‘Glenmark has also claimed that this drug is effective in co-morbid conditions like hypertension, diabetes, whereas in reality, as per protocol summary, this trial was not designed to assess the FabiFlu in comorbid condition,’ as the letter read.

However, on July 13, 2020, Glenmark reportedly said that it had reduced Favipiravir price from Rs103 to Rs75 per tablet. The Company said, “The price reduction has been made possible through benefits gained from higher yields and better scale, as both the API (Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient) and formulations are made at Glenmark’s facilities in India, the benefits of which are being passed on to patients in the country.”

Thereafter, as reported on July 19, 2020, after receiving a complaint from a member of Parliament, the DCGI sought a clarification from Glenmark over its alleged “false claims” about the use of FabiFlu on Covid-19 patients with comorbidities, including the “pricing” of the drug.

In response Glenmark stated, “Compared to other therapies approved for emergency use in Covid-19, FabiFlu is much more economical and an effective treatment option.” The comparing argued, the estimated total cost for the full course of Favipiravir is Rs 9,150. Whereas, the same for Remdesivir, Tocilizumab and Itolizumab will come to Rs 24,000-30,000, Rs 44,000 and Rs 32,000, respectively.

Importantly, seriously ill Covid-19 patients will often be given many of these drugs, such as, tocilizumab, remdesivir and favipiravir, either one after the other, or simultaneously, making the overall price of treatment hefty for many. From this perspective, the bottom line is, Covid-19 drug treatment in India – where the out of pocket drug expenses is one of the highest in the world, won’t be affordable to many. Besides, there are other critical issues related to Covid-19 drug access and availability to Indian patients. The question that surfaces in this situation, are Covid-19 drug prices are high where there is no or less competition. If, so this is an avoidable situation.

Could this be due to less or no competition?

Continuing with the example of Favipiravir against the above backdrop, Cipla also, reportedly, received the DCGI approval for the launch of experimental Covid-19 drug Favipiravir in India on July 24, 2020. The brand will be marketed under the brand name Ciplenza in the first week of August and is priced much less than Glenmark’s Favipiravir – at Rs 68 per tablet. Could this be due to market competition?

Possibly so, because another report of July 25, 2020 indicated, nearly 10 other Favipiravir formulations will be launched shortly, despite inconclusive scientific clinical evidence as on date. Favipiravir price is expected to fall further due to competition. In that case, what could be the takeaway message, when this price trend is viewed against the response of Glenmark to the DCGI letter, justifying FabiFlu pricing?

Other issues of Covid-19 drug availability and access to Indian patients:

Other critical issues related to Covid-19 drug availability and access to Indian patients include, prices of Covid-19 drugs shooting up in short supply. There have been reports of difficulty in accessing remdesivir in India, too, although, Gilead Sciences has licensed this drug out to a few Indian generic pharmaceutical companies such as Hetero Healthcare, which has announced that it would manufacture and sell it at Rs 5,400 per vial. According to the latest protocol of the health ministry, the dosage of remdesivir should be 200 mg IV on day 1 followed by 100 mg IV daily for 4 days (5 days in total). From this one can easily work out the treatment cost with remdesivir for each patient.

Moreover, a BBC investigation has found that two life-saving drugs used to treat Covid-19 patients in India – remdesivir and tocilizumab – are in short supply and being sold for excessive rates on a thriving black market. Yet another recent investigation has unraveled a growing black-market for plasma therapy, ‘born out of the desperation of families willing to do anything to save their loved ones infected with Covid-19.’

I am citing these examples to give a sense of the plight of common Covid-19 patients from the drug availability, affordability and accessibility perspective – to save lives. However, the good news is, in this otherwise gloomy scenario, as perceived by many, a more empathetic scenario has been reported from many Covid-19 vaccine manufacturers.

More empathetic scenario with Covid-19 vaccine manufacturers: 

According to the World Health Organization (W.H.O), over 160 groups are working on COVID-19 vaccines, and 24 candidates have already reached human testing, Some are, reportedly gearing up for phase 3. It is widely expected, vaccines might be ready later this year or early next year. Vaccine developers are racing ahead at record speed, supported by Governments and facilitated by the drug regulators, to translate billion dreams coming true amid a public health catastrophe.

For the world population to acquire immunity against the Covid-19 onslaught, the key question remains: ‘At what price’, when vaccines are available? According to reports, the encouraging news is, some major vaccine makers, such as:

  • AstraZeneca (with Oxford University) plans to price at “no profit” during the pandemic “to support broad and equitable access around the world.” The company has entered several agreements with governments and other groups to provide about 2 billion doses around the world, at no profit.
  • Similarly, J&J has also “committed to bringing a safe and effective vaccine to the public on a not-for-profit basis for emergency pandemic use.”
  • Pfizer CEO has also said the company “will make a very, very marginal profit at this stage.” He pointed out that the company hasn’t taken any governmental funding, unlike other players. The company and its partner BioNTech have entered a deal with the U.K. government for 30 million doses. Moreover, Pfizer and BioNTech will get $1.95 billion from the US government to produce and deliver 100 million doses of their Covid-19 vaccine candidate.
  • Moderna CEO said, there’s “no world, I think, where we would contemplate to price this higher than other respiratory virus vaccines.”
  • Sanofi, which has separate COVID-19 vaccine partnerships with GlaxoSmithKline and Translate Bio, has “been committed to working with governments, partners and payers to ensure that when new vaccines are approved, we will make them available and affordable,”
  • Merck CEO also said the company has committed to “broad, equitable, affordable access.”
  • Nearer home, Serum Institute of India, has pledged to make 1 billion doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca jointly formed COVID-19 vaccine at under Rs1000 per shot. The production could start as early as first quarter next year. Company CEO said this is not the time to make money from a vaccine against the novel Coronavirus, which has caused a global pandemic.

These pledges do give a comfort to many. Because, unlike Covid-19 repurposed older drug manufacturers, Covid-19 vaccine makers seem to be more empathetic to make these accessible and available to the world population at an affordable price.

Conclusion:

Well past a million mark, as on July 26, 2020 morning, the recorded Coronavirus cases in the country reached 1,339,176 with 31,425 deaths. With the number of daily cases being more than Brazil, India is poised to bridge its gap with the South American country. The steep unenviable climb continues.

The July 21, 2020 article – ‘Drug Pricing Back in the Spotlight,’ published in the PharmaExec.com, quoted the ICER Executive Vice-President saying,’ the drug pricing conversation is different in a pandemic.’ The system needs to ensure public access to drugs and vaccines in this global health crisis. If it does not happen, I reckon, appropriate authorities must step in with specific remedial measures.

Otherwise, the kudos showered on the drug industry for promptly offering a number of repurposed older drugs for emergency use against Covid-19 may not last long, if these treatments are not affordable and accessible to a vast majority. From this perspective, the questions being raised on accessibility, affordability and availability of many Covid-19 drugs, need to be addressed and resolved – soon.

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.

Changing Doctors’ Practice Dynamics With Covid-19 And Beyond

Posted on by
Reply

Unexpectedly, the answer to an onerous question surfaced just around a year’s time. In my article on this blog, written on April 08, 2019, I raised a question – “Would ‘Connected Healthcare’ Catch Pharma Players Off-Guard?” Interestingly, an unexpected and abrupt turn of events in the global healthcare space, including India, triggered by Covid-19 pandemic, signals an early dawn of an evolving reality, related to ‘Connected Healthcare’, in India.

Never ever, I reckon, the Government realized so well that continuation with a fragile public healthcare infrastructure is self-defeating for the country. Allocation of financial resources, at least 2.5 percent of the country’s GDP, for its rejuvenation – powered by AI-based modern digital technology, would help avoid overburden on the healthcare system. This will mean, saving more lives and also a significant reduction of morbidity, especially in a situation, like Covid-19 pandemic. Good health can propel good economy, more effectively.

That’s why, ‘connected healthcare’ – by effectively linking requisite ingredients of all health-related information that medical professionals and the patients would need, appears to be the new reality. This process is being facilitated by rapid acceleration of usage of various digital platforms, by both healthcare consumers and providers. Thus, it is becoming increasing clear now that leveraging digital technology with innovative mindset and a fresh pair of eyes, will be the way forward, in India, as well. It seems very likely, when considered from two angles:

  • What several research data reveals about an increase in usage of digital platforms by healthcare consumers and providers, before and during Covid-19 pandemic. Especially because, this struggle appears to be for a long haul.
  • Most countries are currently struggling to navigate through highly contagious Covid-19 outbreak and simultaneously trying to chart a workable pathway for avoiding similar eventualities in the future.

In this article, I shall try to focus on Covid-19 induced changes in doctors’ practice dynamics – based on research studies, while revisiting the subject on ‘connected healthcare,’ and its relevance now – also in the years ahead.

Research studies capture a new and growing awareness: 

The recent findings from the “Digital Doctor 2020” survey, which is a ‘21-country study of Doctors’ perspectives on digital and connected health, highlight some interesting points. This study was conducted just before the global outbreak of Coronavirus. Some of its findings were also deliberated inan article published in the PharmExec.com on April 23, 2020. The paper is titled, ‘How Prepared Were Physicians for the COVID-19 Digital Upswing? Some of the key points, as reported, are worth noting:

  • Although, the awareness of drug prescribers of different digital technologies related to healthcare is high, how these technologies work in healthcare was unknown to many doctors at the time of the Digital Doctor 2020 survey. It came out that clear benefit statements, will be welcomed when there is such a steep learning curve.
  • Regardless of face-to-face interactions still remaining preferred choice before the pandemic, online channels are on the rise and accelerating with COVID-19 lockdown.
  • Benefits of using connected health devices for patient management and treatment are widely recognized and is believed to play a key role in the future. The respondents agree, even their patients are now more interested in their own health data, as they are gaining control over their weight, diet and physical activities.

Highlighting that their research data over the last few weeks showing increasing usage of digital solution to respond and adapt to the new realities of Covid-19 pandemic, the author of the article concluded: ‘For a long time, digital solutions have often been considered an option; now they have become a necessity.’ To understand the emerging scenario, let us now look at the preferred communication channels of the doctors – pre-Covid-19 outbreak. 

Preferred channels of doctors pre-Covid-19 outbreak:

According to the Ipsos survey of pre-Covid-19 outbreak, face-to-face communication with Medical Representatives (MR) used to be the most favored channel of the doctors, as follows:

Channel Med. Rep Speaker Program Conf. E-detail Journal Ads Med. Liaison E-mail Direct mail Pharma website
Pref. % 35.2 11.7 10.0 8.4 8.4 8.8 8.4 5.0 4.1

However, on April 14, 2020, Ipsos shared the results of their interim research conducted, together with M360, among doctors, conducted during Coronavirus outbreak. The preliminary findings indicate, Covid-19 will permanently alter physician practice dynamics. A clear shift in the engagement model with them – away from in-person detailing, throws several significant questions on the traditional physician engagement template of the pharma players.

It also signals another fundamental change in the physicians’ practice dynamics, as Covid-19 seems to have changed practicality of having face-to-face communication between the representatives and doctors, as before. This situation makes ‘connected healthcare’ a reality – as we move deeper into the everyday- evolving scenario.

Some unexpected and significant changes surfaced in a month: 

The above research also flagged, the following two important changes, among several others, triggered by the Coronavirus outbreak:

  • The mean number of sales representative visits dropped from 15.7 before the Coronavirus outbreak to 1.3 in just the following month, during the pandemic 
  • Overall preference and effectiveness of e-detailing also improved, significantly, where any non-personal communication and interaction with drug companies, either through sales representatives or by others, were considered as e-detailing. 

This brings me back to the question, how are doctors feeling about this never before shift in their practice dynamics?

How are doctors feeling about a never before shift in their practice dynamics?

The ongoing research on this critical area captures a new reality, where many doctors, especially those who are not directly engaged in combating the Covid-19 pandemic, are clearly feeling a shift in their practice dynamics. Curiously, the new feeling of a shift also includes, the way these doctors interact with different drug companies, mostly through their Medical Representatives.

These inklings of the doctors are expected to get translated into some fundamental changes in the real-life situation, as we all sail through the life-changing time caused by Covid-19. Especially, considering the requirements of a new normal – social distancing, wearing a mask always while on outdoor, and several other norms as prescribed from time to time.

‘Connected healthcare,’ is expected to take its place on the center stage:

In this situation, ‘connected healthcare,’ which used to be more discussed than practiced, is expected to take its place on the center stage. It is necessary in the present situation for remote consultations, primarily for chronic ailments – for effective disease management and treatment. More so, as in the current situation individual health awareness of a large population, even in India, is increasing with an accelerated speed, perhaps more than ever before.

Thus, this is the right time to focus on ‘connected healthcare’, powered by AI-based digital technology. It has immense potential to help the Indian population getting immediate medical attention at a lower cost, with an improved access, for all. Though these are early days, it appears the ball has started rolling in the right direction, as the recent draft guidelines of the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) indicates: ‘Patient can WhatsApp, SMS or email consent for Covid-19 clinical trials.’

Conclusion:

Still today, there is no sign of even temporary flattening the disease progression curve in India. As on May 10, 2020 morning, the recorded Coronavirus cases continue to climb sharply to 62,939 with 2,109 deaths, which is rising in India faster than most other countries. On May 07, 2020, AIIMS director again warned that Covid-19 pandemic is yet to peak in the country. “According to modeling data and the way our cases are increasing, it is likely that peak can come in June and July,” he added.

But is it getting worse? Despite stringent lockdown, there has been a surge in cases, which can also be attributed to higher levels of testing. However, from a doubling rate of 11.5 days on May 3, it has shortened to 10.3 days, which means that cases are doubling in quicker time. Each set of 10,000 cases is now increasing at a more rapid pace than the preceding set, highlighted an editorial of a leading news daily.

With a vaccine still elusive, the government had been banking mostly on the lockdown to break the chain of transmission of the virus. Meanwhile, the World Health Organization (WHO) has said: ‘Deliberately infecting healthy people with Coronavirus may speed Covid vaccine studies,’ reflecting more uncertainties in this area. It is also not likely that the country will cease to have any problems with its fragile public healthcare infrastructure and delivery system, even after flattening the disease progression curve.

Along with many other Covid-19 induced life-impacting changes, doctors’ practice dynamics are also expected to undergo a metamorphosis, lasting for an indefinite period. Consequently, I reckon, it’s about time, even for the pharma industry to voluntarily adopt ‘connected healthcare’ as a future way of life. One can get a glimpse of it in the Covid-19 clinical trial draft guidelines of the ICMR. Nonetheless, ‘connected healthcare’ comes with a clear signal of reducing the cost of healthcare and improved patient access, having the potential to effectively mitigate a sizeable part of the precipitated healthcare crisis, caused by Coronavirus.

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.

Setting A Cost Of Time That Patients May Gain From A New Therapy

Posted on by
Reply

Since quite some, an intense ongoing debate about setting a cost of time, often by a few months, that patients could possibly gain from a new therapy for complex diseases. The answer still remains elusive.  Meanwhile, newer therapies for treating cancer, such as, Kymriah, priced at US$ 475,000, alongside several rare diseases, hit the market with jaw-dropping prices. The latest being - Zolgensma of Novartis, carrying a price tag of US$ 2.12 million – the most expensive treatment ever. This trend assumes greater significance as Bio – claimed as the world’s largest trade association representing biotechnology companies, and related organizations, across the United States and in more than 30 other nations, also makes some interesting points in this area.

This article will dwell on the relevance of this important issue, both in today’s and also in the future perspective. It will try to explore, why pharma and biotech companies are not keen to use a ‘transparent multi-factorial life-value calculator’, especially for prolonging life or curing an incurable disease, with a high-priced novel therapy.

Emotional ads to justify the trend, against tough practical questions: 

A part of a sleek looking advertisement from Bio, depicting the power of new therapies to prolong life, carries a headline – ‘Time. The Currency of Life,” followed by three emotive lines and two equally emotive questions: “Another decade with a spouse. A few more years with your best friend. A rich, fuller life rather than one cut short. How do we place value on these?” It then asks: “What is more precious? What is more priceless?”

Turning this emotive question on its head to a rational one, an article published in the Stat News on February 25, 2016 questioned: “How much is an extra month of life worth?” It asked the drug makers to calculate the same. The same article also quoted a Yale University economist and practicing radiologist asking: “It’s all well and good to just say life is priceless, but the reality is we are paying for it.”

Emotive ads try to justify funding towards innovation for such drugs:

The same advertisement, as above, while trying to indirectly justify such exorbitant drug costs, used yet another emotive note in its playbook. It emphasized: “By continuing to fund the innovation pipeline that has served us so well, we will be able to reduce the costs associated with modern-day health care.”

Such claims are being scientifically challenged – head on, by many important studies. To illustrate this point, I shall quote the following two, both were published in the JAMA Network. The first one in the JAMA Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery and the next one in JAMA Oncology.

The first article is the ‘John Conley Lecture’, carrying a title, ‘Unintended Consequences of Expensive Cancer Therapeutics—The Pursuit of Marginal Indications and a Me-Too Mentality That Stifles Innovation and Creativity,’ appeared on December 2014. On innovative drugs of such genre, the paper concluded: “The use of expensive therapies with marginal benefits for their approved indications and for unproven indications is contributing to the rising cost of cancer care. We believe that expensive therapies are stifling progress, by:

  • Encouraging enormous expenditures of time, money, and resources on marginal therapeutic indications and
  • Promoting a me-too mentality that is stifling innovation and creativity.

The second article is an ‘original investigation, titled ‘Assessment of Overall Survival, Quality of Life, and Safety Benefits Associated with New Cancer Medicines.’ It also underscored: ‘Although innovation in the oncology drug market has contributed to improvements in therapy, the magnitude and dimension of clinical benefits vary widely, and there may be reasons to doubt that claims of efficacy reflect real-world effectiveness exactly.’

Here again, the emotional appeal is being made by creating a ‘perfect World’ scenario. Whereas, scientific analysis of the innovative and high-priced drugs, reveals the reality for other stakeholders to take note of. Different pharma trade associations, although being a part of the same orchestrated effort, try differently to take the eyes off the humongous prices of new life-saving drugs. But many continue to believe that new cancer drug prices have long gone beyond control.

90 percent Biopharma companies do not earn a profit – A bizarre claim?

As is well-known, besides justifying high drug prices by highlighting ‘high R&D cost,’ drug manufacturers often say, as the Bio ad campaign makes an eyebrow raising claim – “Of the approximately 1,200 Biopharma companies in the United States, more than 90 percent do not earn a profit.”

Citing the example of the US market where drug prices are very high, it justifies, the general focus on list prices of the drugs is misplaced. This is because, the ‘manufacturers provide billions of dollars in rebates and discounts on their innovative therapies annually, to federal, state and private payors, in addition to offering direct assistance through patient assistance programs.’ It further added, these discounts vary but can result into a significant total of as much as 50 percent or greater depending on the program.

Experts have challenged even this claim that the list prices do matter, even in the US, for many, including uninsured population and those with co-payment arrangement, which are not based on the discounted prices. Leaving aside America, what happens in those countries, such as India, where out-of-pocket expenses on health care are considered the highest in the world?

With new cancer drug prices going beyond control, the price of postponing death is growing:

That the new cancer drug prices have long gone beyond control, isn’t a new realization. A research paper, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology on May 06, 2013, also noted emphatically: ‘Allowing the producer-dominated market to set drug prices has spiraled the cost of cancer drugs out of control.’  So did another 2015 study, published in the Journal of Economic Perspective.

According to various studies, such as the one published in the JAMA Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, as quoted above, also found after studying over 70 of such new drugs that the median improvement in survival was around 2.1months. Some other reports indicated this number to be around 3.5 months on an average.

Interestingly, the 2015 study, published in the Journal of Economic Perspective found that ‘the price of postponing death is growing. In 2013, one extra year of life for cancer patients costs US$ 207,000, on average, nearly quadruple what it did in 1995.

Is it quality of life over the quantity of life, or vice versa?

The above findings may lead one to the critical question – what type of treatment choice would create the most desirable net impact on individual cancer patients? This evaluation should include all the three parameters – the extent of prolongation of the ‘Length of Life (LoL)’, the ‘Quality of Life (QoL)’ the patients experience during this period – and the additional drug cost that needs to be incurred.

It should ideally be up to patients whether they will choose quality over quantity of life or vice versa. To facilitate this process, an informed briefing by the doctor on the most likely scenario, vis-à-vis other available treatment alternatives, is expected to help individual cancer patient exercise the best affordable individual option.

This point was scientifically addressed in a research article - ‘Quality of life versus length of life considerations in cancer patients: A systematic literature review,’ published in the Journal of Psycho-Oncology on May 15, 2019. The study noted, ‘Patients with cancer face difficult decisions regarding treatment and also the possibility of trading the Quality of Life (QoL) for Length of Life (LoL).’ Little information is available on patients’ preferences in this regard, including ‘the personal costs they are prepared to exchange to extend their life.’

Another related question that also remains equally elusive, is the relationship between the cost of a medication and the amount of quality-time that it offers to patients. Quantifiable assessment of such nature could bring more transparency in drug pricing, especially for those that help treat life-threatening ailments, such as cancer.

Similar questions are raised on pricey therapy for rare diseases:

The cost of drugs for rare diseases is threatening the health care system – articulated an article, published in the Harvard Business Review (HBR) on April 07, 2017. The paper stated, in December 2016, US-FDA announced the market approval of nusinersen (sold as “Spinraza”), an effective Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) treatment licensed to Biogen by Ionis Pharmaceuticals. SMA is considered the most common genetic cause of infant mortality.

As the author penned, “Patients and providers greeted the approval with near ecstasy, but the celebration was bittersweet. Five days after the FDA approved, the drug, Biogen announced each dose would cost US$ 125,000. Given that patients need six doses in the first year and three per year after that, it means the drug costs US$ 750,000 per patient in the first year and US$ 375,000 annually thereafter.”

A desperate father’s reaction for the price – and the economics behind it:

The HBR article captured the reaction of the father of an infant on this price, who is desperate to save the baby – in the following words – “Then there’s Will’s heartbreaking reaction, which I’m sure echoes the sentiments of many touched by SMA. – “The Biogen announcement of the cost of nusinersen floored me in every way possible,” he says. “Words cannot describe the sickening feeling I get when I think about it.” If this could be a father’s reaction in America, one can well imagine what happens in a similar situation to people in the developing world.

At that time, Zolgensma of Novartis, wearing a price tag of US$ 2.12 million for treatment of the same disease, was also shaping up for market launch. On this drug, the author of this HBR article who also happened to be a professor, vice chair of research, and chief of the Division of Neuromuscular Medicine at the University of Utah School of Medicine, wrote: “A very promising gene therapy for SMA is on the horizon, which would require only one dose and potentially render nusinersen obsolete. Did such mercenary economics influence Biogen’s pricing decision? We may never know; drug companies are not required to justify their prices.” On the contrary, as many believe, the concerned global CEOs, reportedly, get a hefty financial reward, for the same.

Conclusion:

It is not difficult to understand either, that some drugs, especially for rare diseases, will be used for treating a smaller number of patients. Hence, the optimal economies of scale in manufacturing can’t be attained. At the same time, the cost of R&D of the therapy needs to be recouped along with a reasonable profit, for investment towards future drugs. This is in addition to market exclusivity the drug will enjoy through patent thicket.

Nevertheless, despite the existence of several methods of a human life value calculation, such as in the insurance industry the use of a transparent and drug industry specific, multi-factorial live-value calculator is still not in vogue. As the drug industry often highlights, the ‘value of human life is priceless’ – regardless of the costs of drugs. In this situation, many industry experts, academics and patient groups advocate that the ongoing uncontrolled pricing mechanism for such medicines should be brought under a leash. This could come in the form of a tough price negotiation’ before the drug marketing approval, as was promised by the Government, or putting in place a stringent price regulatory system.

Be that as it may, the bottom line is to understand and find an answer to: ‘Why Does Medicine Cost So Much?’ This issue was analyzed by the Time Magazine in its April 09, 2019 edition. Quoting Dr. Aaron Kesselheim, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, it emphasized: It all starts with the manufacturers. There are essentially no regulations governing how new drugs are priced – drug companies select a price what they “believe the market will bear.” Blockbuster first-in-class treatments, therefore, command a stratospheric price, like what happened with Gilead’s hepatitis medication – Sovaldi, way back in 2013. It was priced at US$ 1,000 a pill, or US $84,000 for the full course of treatment. From this perspective, although, setting a cost of time that patients may gain from a new therapy has a moral and ethical relevance – but actually, it doesn’t seem to be business-friendly in the drug industry.

By: Tapan J. Ray 

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

Are Pharma Business Ethics And Performance Interlinked?

Posted on by
Reply

Way back in the 1960s, many could realize that of upcoming consumer-focused business environment will bring business practices under intense stakeholder scrutiny. This prompted both the business schools, as well as the commercial organizations to bring the concept of ‘business ethics’ under focus.

However, a boom in the ‘Business Ethics’ curriculum, virtually in every business school, globally, alongside numerous training programs, was palpable around the 90’s. This trend continues even today with as much gusto, but with increasing participation of various companies, primarily to showcase their commitment to ethical standards and values as fundamental business requirements.

Like many other industries, the same is visible in the pharma business, as well. Which is why, many pharma CEO’s, such as of Novartis, emphasized even in its 2018 CEO’s letter to the company shareholders that: ‘We have made clear to everyone at Novartis that we must never compromise our ethical standards to meet business objectives.’ The previous CEO of the same company also used similar words. Moreover, one can find a similar commitment to business ethics being displayed in the respective websites of many other drug companies.

I have discussed various different aspects on this subject since 2011. One such article is titled, ‘Business Ethics, Values and Compliance: Walking the Talk,’ published in this blog on December 26, 2011. However, in this article, after a broad outline, I shall endeavor to explore whether or not compliance with pharma business ethics is intimately related to the company’s performance, especially in the medium to longer term. While doing so, let me help recapitulate what exactly does ‘business ethics’ mean to all?

‘Business Ethics’:

As many would know, the ‘business ethics’ or ‘ethical business behavior’, is defined as ‘acting in ways consistent with what society and individuals typically think are good values. Ethical behavior tends to be good for business and involves demonstrating respect for key moral principles that include honesty, fairness, equality, dignity, diversity and individual rights.’

When this definition is applied to the pharma industry, in general, one finds, despite bringing to market top innovative drugs, a pharma player with dubious ethical behavior, may face a great risk of losing its reputation – a key element for business success, if not survival.

What is happening today in this area?

As, stated above, from various statements of pharma head honchos and also as displayed in their respective websites, it seems to be a serious area for them. Intriguingly, despite such laudable intent, the situation on the ground for many of these companies are quite different. According to reports, even in the Indian Pharma Industry, blatant disregard for maintaining basic ethical standards is, reportedly, not uncommon, either. Interestingly, no less than the Prime Minister of India is, apparently, aware of some of these issues in the pharma industry.

Ultimate ethical goals and consumer perceptions of ethical behavior:

Many research papers have been discussing this point, since long. They also flagged some critical areas, across pharma business domains, for corrective action. One such paper is titled, ‘Ethical challenges in the pharmaceutical industry,’ published in the April 2012 issue of Pharmaceuticals Policy and Law.

It clearly articulated, the ultimate ethical goal in the pharmaceutical industry is to discover and develop safe, efficacious and high-quality drugs that allow patients to live longer, healthier and more productive lives, while making a profit to reward shareholders and to invest in research for the next generation of medicines. The essence of it holds good also for generic drugs, too.

While this may be mostly happening, as the article noted, overall consumer perception of pharma business ethics is largely negative. This avoidable stakeholder perception is primarily triggered by, among others, pricing, data disclosure, clinical study design, marketing practices, cost effectiveness of treatments, and often reported ‘pharmaceutical frauds’, as quoted earlier.

Regardless of drug industry claim, consumers generally perceive new drug discovery as a fundamental business necessity for the industry. Whereas, they are more interested in access and affordability to these drugs, besides other related business practices. This brings us to the question – Are alleged breach of ‘business ethics’ systemic in nature for pharma?

Are ‘business ethics’ related issues, systemic in nature?

While many pharma CEOs keep highlighting, how ethical their operating standards and corporate values are, reports keep coming that these issues are not superficial but systemic in nature. One such report was published in Fierce Pharma on October 14, 2019 carrying a headline – “Novartis appears to have a systemic ethics problem. What can it do make amends?” Justifying this caption, the news article elaborated:

‘When a company is repeatedly embroiled in scandals or compliance breaches—from on-the-ground sales activities to decisions made at the very top—an isolated infection isn’t to blame. It’s a systemic illness. And judging by the long list of allegations and infractions at Novartis, that’s what the Swiss drug maker is facing. But is there a cure? Some soul-searching and a closer look at the company’s culture could help.’

Quoting a corporate ethics and compliance expert Hui Chen, the article underscored, for such malpractices ‘don’t just blame everything on a few rogue employees.’ Pharma leadership may wish to accept this reality and make amends wherever necessary, soon. With the above perspective, it will also be worth looking at, how is this toxin invading a corporate system, jeopardizing its business performance, and why?

Even patients expect pharma to demonstrate ethical business practices:

Generating new and more prescriptions for patients’ treatment being the lifeblood of any pharma business, the core strategic focus of the business should naturally be on patients, and the society they belong to. This is a fundamental requirement, not just for making profit in business, but for its survival, too. It is now clear that even patients are becoming increasingly aware of this fact.

Consequently, they expect the pharma players to demonstrate ethical behavior and follow ethical business practices, instead of being on a self-serving mode. Scores of instances, across the globe, suggest that many pharma players are failing again, again and again in this critical area of business. One may say that commercial interests overshadowing consumers’ interests, is not uncommon in business. But wait a minute, we are talking here about an industry that patients look up to, while fighting dreaded diseases to save lives. Thus, the question that follows – why is this virus of non-compliance to business ethics invading a corporate system?

How is this virus invading a corporate system?

Search for an answer to this question isn’t new. It was discussed in the Harvard Business Review - more than 25 years ago, in its May-June 1993 article – ‘What’s the Matter with Business Ethics?’ Even at that time, the author noted: The more entrenched the discipline of business ethics becomes in business schools, the more bewildering it appears to managers. This discussion brought to the fore many interesting points. One such was, the field of business ethics is largely irrelevant for most managers. It’s not because that they are hostile to the idea of business ethics, but ‘real-world competitive and institutional pressures lead even well-intentioned managers astray.’

Presumably, because of this reason, as the Author acknowledged, all managers face “hard issues whose solutions are not obvious,” where the “reconciliation of profit motives and ethical imperatives is an uncertain and highly tricky matter.”

Thus, I reckon, many organizations find achieving organizational expectations, especially for demanding short-term financial goals, while maintaining business ethics, is becoming a real challenge. Similar sense would obviously influence many practicing managers, too. Now, the question that comes is, what happens to the organization, if its managers keep doing so to achieve the set financial objectives of the company?

When achieving end-goals by following business ethics is considered impractical:

If the business strategy is increasing brand prescription generation by any possible manner to outperform competition, the means adopted to meet the goals may find easy acceptance by many in the company. In the pharma industry, such situation may arise while chasing annual and monthly targets or at times closing the month-end sales deficits, too. Such acts may help achieve short-term goals with flying colors, regardless of blatant violation of business ethics or breaking legal norms, such as, bribing prescribers for writing prescriptions.

When remains undetected, such practices continue. But, when repeated compromises on the ethical practices of a company at the cost of patients’ interest, surface and reported by the media, one precious asset of the organization gets seriously damaged – its reputation. Again, one may ask, will it have any impact on the company’s medium to long term financial performance?

How are ethical ‘business practices’ and the company’s performance interlinked?

The fine thread that links these two, is the corporate reputation – an invaluable asset of the organization, having a strong connect with stakeholders, including patients – for a sustainable business growth. The broader aspects of its consumer-connection have been discussed by both academia and individual experts. One such illustration may be drawn from the Charter College of the United States.

It underscores: ‘Not only does it feel good to be part of a company with a great reputation, but it’s great for business. When you have a reputation for consistently being ethical in how you source and build products, and treat employees, customers and the community, more people will want to do business with you. This means you’ll appeal to a variety of people and organizations that will be great for boosting your business…’

This means, compromising with ethical business practices to achieve short-term goals comes at a great risk of jeopardizing the medium and long-term success and sustainability of the organization. This is not a mere theoretical possibility. Research studies also vindicate that ‘reputation is an economic multiplier.’

Reputation is an economic multiplier:

Some may conclude, ethical business practices may help enhance company’s reputation, but don’t create any significant impact on business performance. This point has been well deliberated by the Reputation Institute (RI) in its analysis, titled - ‘The Business Case for Reputation.’

The analysis established ‘a strong reputation yields 2.5 times better stock performance when compared to the overall market.’ This vindicates the point that reputation indeed enhances corporate performance for its stakeholders and is an economic multiplier. Understandably, the paper reiterated: ‘This is not a bold claim — it’s a fact.’

Conclusion:

The drug industry, in general, and research-based pharma players in particular, seem to feel that propagating its focus and efforts on bringing innovative drugs to the market, would help build a good reputation. But it doesn’t really happen that way. Instead, public perception that helps create corporate reputation, is often driven mainly by issues such as drug pricing – access and affordability, besides various widely reported alleged unethical business practices of drug companies.

Many such purported breaches in ethical behavior of a company are recurrent, such as one that was reported on October 22, 2019. It said, Novartis’ Zolgensma launch has been anything but boring: First a record-setting price tag, then a data-manipulation scandal and now the company is facing “manufacturing questions” that will delay Zolgensma’s approval in the EU and Japan.

The impact of these alleged unethical business practices of drug companies also got reflected in the 2018 2018 Gallup Poll where the pharma industry came out as the most poorly regarded industry, ranking last on a list of 25 industries that Gallup tests annually. Interestingly, the Reputation Institute (RI) also reported a 3.7 percent decline in pharma reputation between 2017 and 2018.

Thus, the core point that stands out is, ethical business practices and company performance are interlinked. Ethical business behavior plays a key role to enhance a company’s reputation, which in turn add value to the long-term financial performance of the company and vice-versa.

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.

 

Reaping Rich Harvest With Orphan Drugs

Posted on by
Reply

A set of perplexing questions on the drug industry has been haunting many, since long. One such area is intimately associated with the core purpose of this business, as enunciated by each company, often publicly. Just to give a feel of it, let me quote what one of the largest global pharma players – Pfizer articulated in this regard, on April 5, 2019: “Health for All is at the core of our company’s purpose. We advance breakthroughs that change patients’ lives by ensuring they have access to quality health care services and Pfizer’s medicines and vaccines.”

Publicly expressed core purpose of any pharma business being generally similar, it may be construed as the same of the industry, at large. Hence, some baffling questions – not ethical, but purely commercial in nature, float at the top of mind, such as:

  • How the core purpose of business – “Health for All”, gets served when companies bring to the market mostly exorbitantly high-priced drugs, having access only to a minuscule patient population?
  • How are these companies growing at a faster pace and doing better commercially, by focusing more on orphan drugs approved for the treatment of rare diseases, affecting a very small patient population.

At this point, it will be worthwhile to have a quick recap on ‘orphan drug’ and ‘rare disease’. According to MedicineNet, orphan drugs are those which are developed to specifically treat rare medical condition. This rare medical condition is also referred to as an orphan disease. With that preamble, I shall now focus on this knotty area in search of evidence-based answers to – Is it possible to reap a rich harvest in business with orphan drugs for rare disease? And, if so, how?

Is the focus on high priced orphan a strategic business move?

Regardless of an affirmative or negative answer to the above questions, many people are head scratching with anguish while observing this trend in the drug industry. Mainly because, it is possibly the most important industry for most patients, not only while suffering from an ailment, but also before and after it happens, for various reasons.

The anguish increases manifold, when top manufacturers of popular mass-market drugs, such as, the cholesterol blockbuster Crestor, Abilify for psychiatric conditions, cancer drug Herceptin, and rheumatoid arthritis drug Humira, the best-selling medicine in the world, at a later stage seek and receive orphan drug status for these products reaping a rich harvest. The underlying intent being leveraging ‘additional advantages’ for exorbitant pricing and lesser competition. Hence, it is a strategic business move. I shall discuss this point in greater details, as was raised in a Kaiser Health News (KHN) investigation, in this article.

The same feeling gets resonated in several articles and papers, such as the one titled ‘Big Pharma’s Go-To Defense of Soaring Drug Prices Doesn’t Add Up,’ published in The Atlantic on March 23, 2019. It questioned, ‘How is it that pharmaceutical companies can charge patients $100,000, $200,000, or even $500,000 a year for drugs – many of which are not even curative?’ Nonetheless, the strategy is working well, as we shall find below.

More drugs for rare diseases entering the market at a higher price:

Another article, titled ‘Drug Prices for Rare Diseases Skyrocket While Big Pharma Makes Record Profits,’ published by America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) on September 10, 2019 wrote, drugs for rare diseases are now entering the market at higher prices than ever before, ranging from tens-of-thousands to hundreds-of-thousands of dollars per patient. It further wrote, according to a new report by AHIP, ‘out-of-control drug prices mean too many patients are forced to choose between paying for their prescriptions or paying their mortgage. The prices for drugs to treat rare medical conditions are 25 times more expensive than traditional drugs. That is 26-fold increase in two decades.

The rationale behind so high pricing:

To explore the rationale behind the exorbitant pricing of such drugs, let’s examine what the expert organizations, such as the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (CSSD) said in this regard. Quoting a senior research fellow of CSDD, the article - ‘The High Cost of Rare Disease Drugs,’ published by the Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News (GEN) on March 04, 2014 reported, although biopharma players generally set higher prices for orphan drugs, there is no causal link between cost of development and pricing. Instead, rare-disease drug prices reflect typical supply and demand situation: ‘Few treatment alternatives allow companies to charge what they can, knowing that payers will often ultimately foot the bill.’

It further explained: “The rarity of the disease means that few people are affected. Generally, the fewer disease sufferers there are, the higher the price of the drug. Companies that invest the same amount of money or more in orphan drugs as they would non-orphan drugs, want to recoup their investment.”

The situation in India for such drugs:

The January 05, 2019 issue of The Pharma Letter captures it all in its headline – ‘India lifts price caps on innovative and orphan drugs; major fillip for Big Pharma.’ It said, with the new legislation announced on January 4, 2019, the Indian government has decided to remove price restrictions on new and innovative drugs developed by foreign pharmaceutical companies for the first five years. In a rider, the government notification also states, the provisions of the Drug Price Control Order (DPCO) 2013 will not apply to drugs for treating orphan diseases (rare diseases).

How will it impact Indian patients?

Consequent to the above government decision, as the report indicated: ‘Orphan drugs to treat rare disease, like Myozyme (alglucosidase alfa) and Fabrazyme (agalsidase beta), both from Genzyme, which are used in the treatment of rare genetic diseases, are among a host of medicines that are to be kept out of price control.’

Quoting officials, the paper pointed out, the most challenging part in the fight against rare diseases is access to affordable treatment. As on date, the prices of these drugs tend to vary, e.g., the cost of treatment with enzyme replacement therapies may reach more than $150,000 per treatment per year. Whereas, in some other areas it may even be as much as $400,000 annually. Moreover, most of these drugs are rarely available in India. As a result, Indian patients suffering from rare diseases have to import these drugs directly. This makes affordability of medicines with an orphan drug regulatory status, a major issue for different stakeholders.

Why patient groups are not generally too vocal about this issue?

An interesting paper of 2008-09 brought to the fore the importance of patient organizations to further patient interest in various areas of health care. With the example of rare diseases and orphan drugs, it aptly expressed: ‘by changing the scale of their organizational efforts, patients’ organizations have managed to integrate themselves into the relays of power through which matters of health are thought about and acted upon. Through their formation into coalitions, patients’ organizations have been able to assume a number of important functions in relation to the government of health.’ The paper further added that the orphan drug problem can be thought of as having changed the scale and organizational form of rare disease patients’ groups.

Regrettably, a recent report of October 09, 2019, raised a big question in this area with a startling headline - ‘Big Pharma’s shelling out big-time to patient organizations. Is there any quid pro quo?’ It said, the Senate Finance Committee of the United States, while looking into the drug pricing decisions, ‘is digging into pharma funding for patient advocacy groups, which have been known to speak in tune that are music to the industry’s ears.’ It added, some Big Pharma constituents together contributed more than $ 680 million to hundreds of patient groups and other nonprofits last year.

It’s worth noting, earlier this year, several patient advocacy groups rallied in objection to a Trump-administration plan that would introduce step therapy requiring patients to try cheaper drugs before moving to more costly ones. ‘A Kaiser Health News analysis found that about half of the groups that objected had received funding from the pharmaceutical industry.’ Be that it may, rallying behind high drug prices by patient groups would help the industry only at the cost of patients’ interest. This is beyond an iota of doubt.

The motivation behind marketing more drugs for rare diseases:

There are several motivating factors to market drugs, which also treat rare disease, attaching startling price tags. The top drivers are generally considered, as follows:

  • The company gets seven years of market exclusive rights with the drug marketing approval for a rare or orphan disease. Interestingly, many drugs that now have an orphan status aren’t entirely new, either. Even if, the product patent runs out, USFDA won’t approve another version to treat that rare disease for seven years. This exclusivity is compensation for developing a drug, designed for a small number of patients whose total sales weren’t expected to be that profitable, otherwise.
  • Market exclusivity rights granted by the ‘Orphan Drug Act’ in the United States, can be a vital part of the protective shield that companies create.
  • Leveraging associated free pricing incentive, the concerned company can attach any price tag of its choice to the orphan drug, sans any competition.
  • Interestingly, more than 80 orphan drugs won USFDA approval for more than one rare disease, and in some cases, multiple rare diseases. For each additional approval, the drug manufacturer is qualified for a fresh batch of incentives. 

The system ‘is being manipulated by many drug makers’:

That this system is being manipulated by many drug makers was also established by the Kaiser Health News (KHN) investigation dated January 17, 2017 titled, ‘Drugmakers Manipulate Orphan Drug Rules To Create Prized Monopolies.’ The analysis brought out that ‘the system intended to help desperate patients, is being manipulated by most drug makers. It reiterated, the key driver is to maximize profits, besides protecting niche markets for even those medicines, which are already being taken by millions. Thus, many orphan drugs, originally developed to treat diseases affecting fewer than 200,000 people, come with astronomical price tags.’

Even some familiar brands were later approved as orphan drugs:

The KHN’s investigation also uncovered that many drugs that now have an orphan status aren’t entirely new. Over 70 were drugs first approved by the USFDA for mass market use. These medicines, some with familiar brand names, were later approved as orphans. ‘In each case, their manufacturers received millions of dollars in government incentives plus seven years of exclusive rights to treat that rare disease, or a monopoly’, the investigation revealed.

The same KHN study also cited the example of AbbVie’s Humira – the best-selling drug in the world. ‘Humira was approved by the USFDA in late 2002 to treat millions of people who suffer from rheumatoid arthritis. Three years later, AbbVie asked the FDA to designate it as an orphan to treat juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, which they told the FDA affects between 30,000 and 50,000 Americans. That pediatric use was approved in 2008, and Humira subsequently was approved for four more rare diseases, including Crohn’s and uveitis, an inflammatory disease affecting the eyes. The ophthalmologic approval would extend the market exclusivity for Humira for that disease until 2023, the report highlighted.

The report also indicated, much touted Gleevec of Novartis, a drug that revolutionized the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia, has nine orphan approvals. Similarly, Botox, started out as a drug to treat painful muscle spasms of the eye and has three orphan drug approvals. It’s also approved as a drug for mass-market for a variety of ailments, including chronic migraines and wrinkles. Despite humongous pricing, recent reports show that drugs with orphan status are eclipsing many new drugs with outstanding commercial success.

Companies focus on orphan drugs for better financial results:

Many top global companies’ sharp strategic focus on orphan drugs, presumably for the above reasons, is paying a rich dividend. This is evident from a number of recent reports, such as, ‘Orphan Drug Report 2019’ of Evaluate Pharma, released in April. The report says, orphan drugs will make up one-fifth of worldwide prescription sales, amounting to $242bn in spending by 2024 – much of it is going to either big pharma or big biotech players. It also found that the drugs prescribed for the treatment of rare diseases now account for seven of the 10 top-selling drugs of any kind, ranked by annual sales.

Another study of October 2019 by Prime Therapeutics LLC (Prime) shows, with more of ultra-expensive drug treatments coming to market, there is a sharp jump in the number of drug super spenders. While small in number, this group of drug super spenders grew 63 percent, which resulted in $800 million in additional drug costs. In the same period, the number of drug super spenders with drug costs over $750,000 increased 38 percent. This explains, why many companies are focusing on orphan drugs for better financial results.

Conclusion:

As the above quoted report of AHIP articulated, the regulators’ primary intent behind creating lucrative incentives for orphan drugs, was to encourage drug makers to develop treatments for rare diseases by earning a modest profit. ‘Unfortunately, drug makers have responded by building lucrative business models that empower them to achieve a gross profit margin of more than 80 percent – compared to an average gross profit margin of 16 percent for the rest of the pharmaceutical industry,’ the report said.

The AHIP study also finds, from 1998 to 2017, orphan drugs were 25 times more expensive than non-orphan drugs, resulting 26-fold increase in average per-patient annual cost, while the cost of specialty and traditional drugs merely doubled. Today, 88 percent of orphan drugs cost more than $10,000 per year per patient, which will be no different even when Indian patients import the same. The paper also revealed, in 2017, seven out of ten best-selling drugs had orphan indications. And among newly launched drugs, the share of orphan drugs increased more than 4-fold, from 10 percent to 44 percent, over a 20-year period.

Coming back to the core purpose of the pharma and biotech business, as defined by the pharma organizations themselves, one would have expected the situation to be much different. Their stated business purpose – ‘Health for All’, does not seem to recognize: “Every patient deserves to get the medications they need at a cost they can afford,’ as AHIP reiterates. Whereas, “drug makers are gaming well-intentioned legislation to generate outsized profits from drugs intended to treat a small population of patients with rare diseases.” In this scenario, reaping a rich harvest with the orphan drug status seems to have become a new normal.

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.