Tag Archives: perception

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.

 

Would ‘Complex Generics’ Attract More ‘Authorized Generics’?

Posted on by
Reply

Despite increasing numbers of alleged scams involving generic drugs, both in the United States and also in India, even involving many large generic drug manufacturers, the traditional generic drug market, keeps growing globally. Although, the current growth is in mid-single digit, the market can’t be ignored, either.

That apart, enormous pricing pressure, squeezing bottom line and cutthroat competition, are prompting many companies, including Big Pharma, to craft different strategies to excel in this market. One such involves a shift in business focus from relatively low priced traditional generic drugs to comparatively higher priced complex or specialty generic medicines with a few competitors.

In this emerging situation, a lurking apprehension does surface for many. If the margin is good and the prices of these complex or specialty generics, are much higher than traditional ones, won’t it prompt more ‘Authorized Generics’ coming into the market? Won’t that jeopardize the interest of other generic drug makers? In this article, I shall explore this area, along with its possible consequences. Before doing that, it will be worthwhile to give an overview of the generic market, before recapitulating what are ‘Authorized’ and ‘Complex’ generics.

How lucrative is the generic drugs market now?

According to the latest report by IMARC Group, the global generic drug market size reached US$ 340 Billion in 2018 and is expected to be at US$ 475 Billion by 2024, growing at a CAGR of 5.3 percent during 2019-2024 period.

The key market growth drivers remain, increasing number of product patent expiration, higher prevalence of chronic diseases and different government initiatives to encourage faster generic launch, including the United States. The pace of increase is faster in the emerging markets, like India. However, unlike India, non-branded generic drugs, rather than branded generics, are dominating most the markets.

Although, Central Nervous System (CNS), cardiovascular, dermatology, oncology and respiratory are among the dominant segments in the market, CNS and Cardiovascular segments are the two largest ones in this market. North America holds the largest market share, with more than 88 percent of total prescriptions being written for generic drugs in the U.S., as the report highlights. Despite this scenario, to mitigate huge pricing pressure, cutthroat competition and low margin, many drug players are preparing to move into specialty or complex generics.

The size and growth of complex or specialty generics market: 

The April 2019 report by Research and Markets- “Specialty Generics Market: Global Industry Trends, Share, Size, Growth, Opportunity and Forecast 2019-2024″ states, the global specialty generics market reached a value of US$ 44.8 Billion in 2018. By 2014, its value is expected to reach US$ 88.9 Billion with a much higher CAGR of 11.9 percent, in 2019-2024 period.

Which drugs would belong to this market?

According to the ‘White Paper’ titled, ‘Complex Generics: Maximizing FDA Approval Prospects’ of Parexel, the following are some examples of complex generics; the list continues to grow as more products are being added in this category every day:

  • Complex Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs), examples being Enoxaparin, Low Molecular Weight Heparin, Glatiramoids, Iron Carbohydrate Complexes etc.
  • Complex Formulations, examples being Liposomes, abuse-deterrent generics, parenteral microspheres.
  • Complex Route of Delivery, such as topical ointments and locally acting GI drugs.
  • Complex Drug-Device Combinations, such as DPI, MDI, nasal sprays, and transdermal systems.

These types of complex and high-cost generics, besides some off-patent biologic products and even Biosimilar drugs, are often used to treat complex and life-threatening diseases, such as, cancer, Hepatitis C, and many others. Complex generics are expected to eventually own a significant percentage of the total generic drugs market, as a number of big-ticket specialty drug molecules will go off patent in the ensuing years.

The major advantages of complex generics:

Some of the major advantages of the complex generics market over traditional generics are as follows:

  • Complex manufacturing requirements with higher capital costs – thus, higher price, better margin, fewer players, lesser competition.
  • Increasing prevalence of life-threatening diseases, besides, cost containment measures from the government and healthcare providers, are pushing the demand of these drugs.

Indian companies are also entering the fray: 

As the share of specialty medicines in global spending in 2017 increased to 32 percent from 19 percent in 2007, Indian drug players also could sniff the opportunity in this space. Just as Sun Pharma, reportedly shifted its focus from once lucrative traditional generics medicines to specialty drugs, amid continued price erosion in its biggest market – the US, many others are also joining the fray.  The Indian players who are, reportedly, investing in complex generics include, Aurobindo Pharma, Dr. Reddy’s Labs, Cipla, Lupin, Glenmark and Cadila.

More specifically, with the contribution of specialty medicines to overall pharmaceutical spend in the US, Germany, France, Italy, UK, and Spain – almost doubling over the last 10 years, this trend is likely to gather momentum, as the above report indicated. Accordingly, commensurate strategic actions aimed at this segment by many companies, both global and local, are clearly now visible.

Some strategic initiatives:

In preparation of a major shift in the strategic focus on complex generics, key examples of some of the important initiatives of different companies will include the following:

  • Big generic players wanted to be bigger in the global market through M&A, such as Teva acquired Allergan’s generic business, Mylan bought Abbott Laboratories’ generics businessAbbott Laboratories’ non-U.S. developed markets specialty and branded generics business. Similarly, Endo International acquired Par Pharmaceuticals. In India the mega deal of Sun Pharma acquiring Ranbaxy in 2015. In the same year, Lupin acquired New Jersey-based generic drugs firm GAVIS to boost its presence in the US.
  • Novartis sold its 300 ‘troubled’ U.S. generics to India’s Aurobindo for US$ 1B, as the entire generics industry faced unrelenting pricing pressure in the U.S.’ Whereas, Novartis’ wants to focus higher-margin assets like Biosimilars and complex generics.
  • Pfizer is set to combine its off-patent drug unit Upjohn with Mylan, to create a new business with its own off-patent branded and generic drug lines. The merger will bring together Pfizer medications such as Lipitor and Viagra with Mylan’s EpiPen, used to halt life-threatening allergic reactions.
  • Owing to margin pressure and other reasons, some of the Indian drug players also decided to enter into higher margin complex generics space, pursuing both organic and inorganic routes. There are several such examples, such as: In January 2017, Zydus Cadila announced acquisition of Sentynl Therapeutics Inc., a US based specialty pharma company specialized in marketing of products in the pain management segment. And in October 2017, Lupin acquired US-based Symbiomix Therapeutics LLC to expand Lupin’s US women’s health specialty business in the highly complementary gynecological infection sector.

Any flip side of complex generics business for the Indian players? 

Although, driven by mainly higher profit margins and tough entry barriers, many generic players with the requisite wherewithal, find complex generics business more attractive to focus on, there’s a flip side to it, as well. This is, post patent expiry, innovator companies may be encouraged to introduce more ‘Authorized Generics’, creating a tough competitive environment for other generic players to compete with them. This brings us to the question of what are ‘Authorized Generics?’

Authorized Generics:

According to the USFDA, the term ‘Authorized generic’ is used to describe an approved brand name drug that is marketed without any brand name on its label. It is exactly the same product as the branded one, and may also be marketed by another company with the innovator company’s permission. Generally, an ‘Authorized Generic’ is launched at a lower price than the brand name drug.

Moreover, ‘Authorized Generics’, despite being the generic version of patented molecule, are mostly marketed by the patent holders themselves, both pre and post patent expiry. While a separate NDA is not required for marketing an ‘Authorized Generic’, USFDA requires that the NDA holder notify the FDA, if it markets an ‘Authorized Generic. The NDA holder may market both the ‘Authorized Generic’ and the brand-name product at the same time. Interestingly, the USFDA has approved around 1215 ‘Authorized Generics’ as of September 30, 2019.

Advantages of ‘Authorized Generics’ over ‘Traditional Generics’:

The key advantage of ‘Authorized Generics’ over traditional generic drugs is, while traditional generic drugs can be marketed only after patent expiry of the innovator drug, ‘Authorized Generics’ can be marketed even before patent expiry. In other words, innovator companies or their authorized collaborators can make lower priced ‘Authorized Generic’ versions available on their behalf, under their own new drug application (NDA). ‘Authorized Generics’ may be made available to patients even before patent expiry to out-maneuver the conventional generic drug makers, in advance, on price, quality and doctors’ confidence in the original drug.

According to several reports, over the past years, ‘many innovator drugs companies have been launching Authorized Generics, simultaneously with the first Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDA) filer’s launch of its generic drug product.’ However, the question remains how do the stakeholders perceive the ‘Authorized Generics’?

Perception of ‘Authorized Generics’:

Studies are available analyzing the impact of ‘Authorized Generics’ on the pharma market and also on the stakeholders. In this article, I shall refer to a comprehensive research study, titled ‘Authorized Generics: Effect on Pharmaceutical Market,’ published in the International Journal of Novel Trends in Pharmaceutical Sciences (IJNPTS), on February 29, 2012, which came out with the some notable findings.

Generally, there isn’t any doubt, either on the fact that ‘Authorized Generics’ provide the identical experience that the patient receives from the brand drug but at a lower price. Nor is there any question over greater confidence of doctors while prescribing these drugs. However, the researchers wrapped up the discussion by stating: It is difficult to conclude that the ‘Authorized Generics’ practice should be continued or banned. Though Indian pharmaceutical companies are dealing with generic drugs – 42 percent of the respondents were in favor of ‘Authorized Generics’ practice, whereas 58 percent opposed it. Thus, the overall perception of ‘Authorized Generics’, appears to be a mixed bag.

Conclusion:

There are free flowing arguments both in favor and against the ‘Authorized Generics.’ The article titled, ‘Drugmakers Master Rolling Out Their Own Generics to Stifle Competition,’ published in the Kaiser Health News (KHN) on August 05, 2019, captures it well.

It quoted the spokeswoman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, a powerful pharma lobby group saying, an Authorized Generic drug “reduces prices and results in significant cost savings.” Whereas the critics say, “Authorized Generics hurt long-term competition and often perversely increase costs, even in the short term.”

The detractors further expressed, ‘Authorized Generics’ don’t just steal sales from existing generic rivals, they erode incentives to make generic drugs. A professor at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, who studies pharma was also quoted in this article saying, this practice can “stave off generic competition and make sure that generics can’t get much of a foothold when they do get to market.” Adding further he said: “That’s the game. And drug companies have become masters at this.”

As the Kaiser Health News highlighted, Eli Lilly announced launch of the ‘Authorized Generic’ version of Humalog insulin in March 2019 for US$137 a vial, at half the price of its brand name version costing US$237. This was reasoned by the company as a considerate move to address the need of those patients who can’t afford the price of the brand – Humalog. Curiously, even some analysts believe that ‘Authorized Generics’ may help explain why relatively few true generics are reaching the market despite a surge in approvals, especially in the United States.

Against the above backdrop, the drug policy makers need to ponder, would ‘complex generics’ of different companies face greater challenges from ‘Authorized Generics,’ playing a spoilsport for the rest in this ball game?

By: Tapan J. Ray   

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

 

 

Pharma’s Perception Management

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

Pharma lobbying expenses are shooting north:

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

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

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

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

Whereas pharma’s lobbying output is diving south:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Managing public perception – the new ballgame to influence policies:

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

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

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

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

Is reputation mostly driven by perception?

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

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

‘Designing the future’ from the pharma industry perspective:

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

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

Creating a positive perception for pharma:

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

 

Drug Quality Imbroglio And ‘Culture of Bending Rules’ in India

Posted on by
Reply

“Bottle Of Lies Exposes The Dark Side Of The Generic-Drug Boom” – re-emphasized the book, released in May 2019.  This confirms, the raging debate on the questionable quality of many generic drugs manufactured in India and involving several top domestic pharma companies, is a never-ending one. Numerous articles also ascribe many different reasons to this saga, leaving an overall impression – as if, blindfolded persons are trying to describe an elephant, touching and feeling different parts of the animal’s body, each at a time.

Let me illustrate the point with the Bloomberg article of January 31, 2019. It reported, “Culture of ‘Bending Rules’ in India Challenges U.S. Drug Agency.” And further commented: ‘The FDA confronts creative improvisation in the world’s largest generic-drug exporter.’ Curiously, according to the above report it seems to be a general belief among many, even within India.

This article will take into account the above apprehension – specifically raised against Indian drug manufacturers of both branded and non-branded generics. Accordingly, my focus will be on just three points – as possible causative factors for this critical issue:

  • Is it an India specific concern – thus related to ‘Indian cultural mindset’? or it’s a global issue, involving both Indian multinational drug manufacturers.
  • Is it a systematic attempt to create a perception bias against low-cost generic drugs, worldwide?
  • Are generic drug makers resorting to such unacceptable shortcuts due to increasing margin pressure?

Having deliberated these points, I shall try to outline a set possible remedial measures to address this issue in a holistic way, ensuring a win-win outcome. Let me first explore, whether or not this issue is specific to India, involving Indian drug manufacturers.

Is the issue India specific?

Is the issue of questionable quality of generic drugs, irrespective of whether they carry a brand name or not restricted to the shores of India? One can find its answer in the same report, as quoted above. A yearlong investigation by Bloomberg News into the generic-drug industry concluded, ‘FDA inspections at factories from West Virginia to China have found reason to doubt the data meant to prove drugs are safe and effective.’

One possible reason for such perception could be, since India is predominantly a branded generic market, voices decrying ‘questionable’ safety and efficacy of cheaper non-branded generic drugs, are too loud. Nevertheless, amidst all this, who’s who of branded generic manufacturers continue getting caught on the wrong foot by overseas regulators in the quality quagmire. Ironically, multinationals are also included in it.

Multinationals are also included in such quality quagmire:

There are several examples of non-compliance to requisite drug quality standards by multinational drug companies. Let me illustrate the point with an example that involves a top global pharma player.

The March 04, 2019 ‘Warning Letter’ of US-FDA for the Irungattukottai (Tamil Nadu) plant of Pfizer in India, clearly said: “Your quality system does not adequately ensure the accuracy and integrity of data to support the safety, effectiveness, and quality of the drugs you manufacture.”

This is not a solitary example of Pfizer’s generic hospital injectables manufactured in this plant. According to a media report dated July 17, 2018, twice before US-FDA had cited manufacturing and testing issues in this facility, containing 11 observations of the regulator, such as, workers “manipulated test sample weights to obtain passing results” for both batches of raw materials and finished product. It is a different matter that the company, later on, decided to close this plant for commercial reasons. Be that as it may, negative perception of generic drug quality is indeed an issue that needs to be addressed without further delay, holistically.

Studies have captured negative perception of generic drugs:

That this is a perception, has been well – elucidated along with its implications, in several studies. A few of which are as below:

A BMJ article concluded: “A significant proportion of doctors, pharmacists and lay people hold negative perceptions of generic medicines. It is likely these attitudes present barriers to the wider use of generics.” It further added, “Negative perceptions of medicine quality along with other drivers contribute towards choosing more expensive medicines in the private sector.”

Endorsing this point, yet another BMJ article inferred: “Negative perceptions of generic medicines and preferential promotion of branded medicines over generics by pharmaceutical companies could influence prescriber behavior and affect trust in healthcare provided in public services. To succeed, access to medicine programs need to systematically invest in information on the quality of medicines and develop strategies to build trust in healthcare offered in government health services.”

Again, in a separate survey of over 2700 physicians on perceptions of generic drugs, more than 23 percent of respondents expressed negative perceptions about their efficacy and nearly 50 percent. reported negative perceptions of generic drug quality. In the same survey, patients also expressed concerns that the lower cost of generics is associated with reduced medication quality.

Although, the above survey was conducted in the United States, the current situation in India, I reckon, is no different, but with one caveat. Here, preferential promotion of branded generic medicines over cheaper non-branded equivalents, by the respective drug manufacturers, could significantly influence prescriber behavior. Therefore, the question that follows: Is this perception-creation based on facts?

Is the negative perception fact-based?

Although, even the US-FDA clearly states that: ‘A generic medicine works in the same way and provides the same clinical benefit as its brand-name version”, I did try to find some conclusive evidence depicting brand name drugs are superior to their cheaper generic equivalents. While doing literature searches, two types of results emerged – there are studies that do not find any significant difference between generic drugs and their branded equivalents. At the same time, a few other studies do suggest that there is a difference between these two, but admitting that these studies are not conclusive. Let me give below examples of each.

No quality difference found between generic drugs and the branded variants: 

I shall quote here three studies, out of which one is India specific. The analysis reported in the above BMJ article, found that ‘the generic and branded variants of the medicines tested were of comparable quality.’

Another study, published by PLOS Medicine on March 13, 2019 also said, “In this study of 8 drug products conducted using 2 large US commercial insurance databases, we observed that use of generics provided comparable clinical outcomes as the brand products.”

An India specific researchon the same also reported, most generic and branded drug users believed that their drugs were effective in controlling their ailments with no significant difference in reported adverse effects and drug adherence.

Slightly different results were also reported with generics, but not conclusive:

One such study questioned, whether generic drugs are truly equivalent to the brand-name versions.This article was published on January 2019 by Harvard Health Publishing with the title, “Do generic drugs compromise on quality?”

This article quoted a Canadian study, published in the October 2017 issue of ‘Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes’, which found that patients who took generic versions of three different blood pressure medications in the months after the generic drugs became available saw increased rates of drug-related side effects.

Was it due to a perception bias?

To ascertain whether or not there is a perception bias, let us look into the following details of the same study along with its conclusion.

In this study, the researchers ‘looked at the numbers of emergency room visits and hospitalizations for 136,177 individuals ages 66 and over (60% of them women) who used any of three blood pressure medications: losartan (U.S. brand name Cozaar), valsartan (Diovan), and candesartan (Atacand). The investigators examined data for the periods 24 months before and 12 months after the generic versions of these medications went on the market. And found that before the generic versions became available, about one in 10 people taking the blood pressure drugs had to go to the emergency room or be hospitalized each month. In the month after each of the generics went into use, the rates of these adverse events went up: 8% for losartan, almost 12% for valsartan, and 14% for candesartan.’ The study authors commented, this might suggest performance differences between the brand-name and generic drugs.

However, analyzing this study, the Harvard article suggested further probe on the question: Did it result from quality problems with the generic versions of these medications or were there other factors that occurred in this time frame?

Another research, aimed at finding, whether patients are more adherent to generic statins than brand-name statins (lovastatin, pravastatin, or simvastatin) and whether greater adherence improves health outcomes, also concluded, “An 8% reduction in the rate of the clinical outcome was observed among patients in the generic group versus those in the brand-name group.” This also wasn’t a conclusive one, either.

Nevertheless, the key point of a ‘perception bias’, is captured in a separate study, where the researchers did find higher rates of psychiatric hospitalization for patients taking generic and AG escitalopram and sertraline, compared with those who initiated the brand-name product. Importantly, they noted that these outcomes were likely due to either residual confounding or generic perception bias.

No quality difference also found between branded and non-branded generics in India:

There are studies, which captured no quality difference between branded generics and non-branded generics in the country. One such India specific study concluded: “Quality of branded-generics is same as for their branded version. The study highlights the need to modify the drug price policy, regulate the markups in the generic supply chain, conduct and widely publicize the quality testing of generics for awareness of all stakeholders.”

Thus, so far, we have seen in this article that concern on quality of generic drugs is neither India specific, nor is it related to ‘Indian cultural mindset.’ And this is, undoubtedly, a global issue, involving both Indian and multinational drug manufacturers. There are also ample evidences available that a systematic attempt is being made to create a perception bias against low-cost generic drugs, worldwide. Let us now look at the third possible causative factor, as I listed above.

Is it due to margin pressure on generic drugs?

The answer to this question was deliberated in an article titled, ‘Generic drug makers feel pinch as prices crumble,’ published in the Financial Times on August 17, 2017. Quoting a top global financial analyst, it reported – global generic drug industry, where Indian manufacturers are major players,has maintained roughly 30 per cent operating margins over a long period of time, with improvements year on year. But, since last few years, there has been a margin degradation, which may possibly further go down – even lower than what it is today.

The article further highlighted, a round of consolidation among their main customers in the US: the wholesalers, have escalated the problem.  Many of these groups have clubbed together to form “mega buyers”, known as general purchasing organizations, that can command large discounts. Moreover, for the US market, another area of ‘concern’ is that the US-FDA has identified boosting competition in the generics market as one of its main priorities. As this reform opens up, it could squeeze the generic drug margins further.

Many envisage that intense cost cutting measures, could have transgressed in the drug quality assurance area, aggravating this issue. Although, it needs to be verified through credible studies, curiously, some signs of improvement in this area has recently been reported.

That said, there appears to be a strange coincidence between recent reports on Indian drug makers showing improvement in USFDA inspection outcomes and attempts to increase generic drug companies and some of their top executives slapped with price-fixing lawsuits in the U.S.This needs to be studied further.

The way forward:

The negative perception of generic drugs, in general, and non-branded generic drugs, in particular, is most likely a well-crafted business issue, rather than a genuine patient safety concern. It calls for an immediate two-pronged approach:

  • Vigorous awareness and educational campaigns on safety and efficacy of generic drugs targeted to patients, medical and paramedical professionals.
  • New regulatory measures, especially the following five:

- No pricing pressure or price control in any form of generic drugs

- Abolish brand names for generic drugs

- Make generic prescription compulsory to boost intense competition and thereby     reducing the price.

- Restrict the number of ingredients in FDC not more than two or three

- Make Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) mandatory.

Conclusion:

Thus, the questionable quality of generic drugs is not an India specific concern and involves both Indian multinational drug manufacturers. This is also evident from the analysis, as quoted above, that underscores, ‘FDA inspections at factories from West Virginia to China have found reason to doubt the data meant to prove drugs are safe and effective.’ Many studies have revealed that there is a systematic attempt to create a perception bias against low-cost generic drugs, worldwide.

A sequence of remedial measures, as described above, also include fostering competition, instead of introducing government controls on prices of generic drugs with stringent regulatory oversight being in place.

Thus, the so called ‘belief’ that the ‘culture of bending Rules’ is culpable for dubious generic drug quality in India, is more akin to a strong perception, prevailing in India, rather than based on any scientific analysis related to this issue. This ought to change with a well-coordinated intervention – for patients’ health interest sake.

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.

Is India A Success Story With Biosimilar Drugs?

Posted on by
Reply

How Indian generic companies are expanding, if not shifting their business focus on biosimilar and complex generic drugs, may be a current trend of general discourse – but the initiative is not a current one. This journey commenced decades ago with an eye on the future. In those days, Indian players were already dominating the global markets of small molecule generic drugs. Interestingly, it started much before the big global players decided to enter into this segment – especially post patent expiry of large molecule blockbuster drugs.

This strategy not just exhibits a sound business rationale, but also benefits patients with affordable access to biosimilar versions of high cost biologic drugs. In this article, I shall dwell on this subject, basically to understand whether India is a success story with large molecule biosimilar drugs, both in terms of drug development, and also in its commercial performance.

India’s journey began with the dawn of the new millennium:

About two decades back from now, some Indian pharma companies decided to step into an uncharted frontier of large molecule biosimilar drugs. According to the ‘Generics and Biosimilars Initiative (GaBI)’, in 2000 – the first biosimilar drug, duly approved by the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), was launched in the country.  This was hepatitis B vaccine from Wockhardt – Biovac-B.

I hasten to add, in those years, there were no specific regulatory pathways for approval of large molecule biosimilar drugs in India. Thus, the same marketing approval guidelines as applicable to small molecule generic drugs, used to be followed by the DCGI for this purpose. Specific guidelines for biosimilar drugs were implemented on September 15, 2012, which was subsequently updated in August 2016. To date, around 70 large molecule biosimilar drugs, including biopharmaceuticals, have been introduced in India, as the GaBI list indicates.

It is equally important to note that well before any other countries, domestic pharma companies launched in India, AbbVie’s blockbuster Humira (adalimumab) and Roche’s breast cancer treatment Herceptin (trastuzumab). In this context, it is worth mentioning that US-FDA approved the first biosimilar product, Zarxio (filgrastim-sndz), in March 2015.

Will India be a key driver for global biosimilar market growth?

According to the Grand View Research Report of July 2018, increasing focus on biosimilar product development in countries, such as India, China and South Korea, is a major growth driver of the global biosimilar market. As this report indicates, the global biosimilars market size was valued at USD 4.36 billion in 2016, which is expected to record a CAGR of 34.2 percent during 2018-25 period.

Europe has held the largest revenue market share due to a well-defined regulatory framework for biosimilars was in place there for quite some time, and was followed by Asia Pacific (AP), in 2016. Growing demand for less expensive therapeutic products and high prevalence of chronic diseases in the AP region are expected to contribute to the regional market growth – the report highlighted.

Further, the Report on ‘Country-wise biosimilar pipelines number in development worldwide 2017’ of Statista also indicated that as of October 2017, India has a pipeline of 257 biosimilar drugs, against 269 of China, 187 of the United States, 109 of South Korea, 97 of Russia and 57 of Switzerland. However, post 2009 – after biosimilar regulatory pathway was established in the United States, the country has gained significant momentum in this segment, presenting new opportunities and also some challenges to biosimilar players across the world.

Is Indian biosimilar market growth enough now?

An important point to ponder at this stage: Is Indian biosimilar market growth good enough as of now, as compared to its expected potential? Against the backdrop of India’s global success with generic drugs – right from the initial stages, the current biosimilar market growth is certainly not what it ought to be. Let me illustrate this point by drawing an example from theAssociated Chambers of Commerce of India’s October 2016 White Paper.

According to the Paper, biosimilars were worth USD 2.2 billion out of the USD 32 billion of the Indian pharmaceutical market, in 2016, and is expected to reach USD 40 billion by 2030. This represents a CAGR of 30 percent. A range of biologic patent expiry in the next few years could add further fuel to this growth.

A similar scenario prevails in the global market, as well. According to Energias Market Research report of August 2018, ‘the global biosimilar market is expected to grow significantly from USD 3,748 million in 2017 to USD 34,865 million in 2024, at a CAGR of 32.6 percent from 2018 to 2024.’

Many other reports also forecast that the future of biosimilar drugs would be dramatically different. For example, the ‘World Preview 2017, Outlook to 2022 Report’ of Evaluate Pharma estimated that the entry of biosimilars would erode the total sales of biologics by as much as 54 percent through 2022, in the global markets. It further elaborated that biologic sales may stand to lose up to USD 194 billion as several top blockbuster biologic drugs will go off-patent during this period.

Although, current growth rate of the biosimilar market isn’t at par with expectations, there is a reasonable possibility of its zooming north, both in India and the overseas markets, in the near future. However, I would put a few riders for this to happen, some of which are as follows:

Some uncertainties still exist:

I shall not discuss here the basic barriers that restrict entry of too many players in this segment, unlike small molecule generics. Some of which are – requisite scientific and regulatory expertise, alongside wherewithal to create a world class manufacturing facility a complex nature. Keeping those aside, there are some different types of uncertainties, which need to be successfully navigated to succeed with biosimilars. To get an idea of such unpredictability, let me cite a couple of examples, as hereunder:

1. Unforeseen patent challenges, manufacturing and regulatory issues:

  • Wherewithal to effectively navigate through any unexpected labyrinth of intricate patent challenges, which are very expensive and time-consuming. It may crop up even during the final stages of development, till drug marketing, especially in potentially high profit developed markets, like for biosimilars of Humira (AbbVie) in the United States or for Roche’s Herceptin and Avastin in India.
  • It is expensive, time consuming and risk-intensive to correct even a minor modification or unforeseen variation in the highly controlled manufacturing environment to maintain quality across the system, to ensure high product safety. For example, what happened to Biocon and Mylan with Herceptin Biosimilar. As the production volume goes up, the financial risk becomes greater.
  • There are reports that innovator companies may make access to supplies of reference products difficult, which are so vital for ‘comparability testing and clinical trials.’  This could delay the entire process of development of biosimilar drugs, inviting a cost and time-overrun.
  • Current regulatory requirements in various countries may not be exactly the same, involving significant additional expenditure for overseas market access.

2. User-perception of biosimilar drugs:

Studies on perception of biosimilar vis-à-vis originator’s biologic drugs have brought out that many prescribing physicians still believe that there can be differences between originator’s biologic medicine and their biosimilar equivalents. With drug safety being the major concern of patients, who trust their physician’s decision to start on or switch to a biosimilar, this dilemma gets often translated into doctors’ preferring the originator’s product to its biosimilar version. One such study was published in the September 2017 issue of Bio Drugs. Thus, the evolution of the uptake of biosimilars could also depend mainly on similar perception of physicians.

What happens if this perception continues?

Whereas, the W.H.O and drug regulators in different countries are quite clear about comparable safety and efficacy between the originator’s product and its biosimilar variety, some innovator companies’ position on biosimilar drug definition, could help creating a perception that both are not being quite the same, both in efficacy and safety.

To illustrate this point, let me reproduce below how a top ranked global pharma company - Amgen, defines biosimilar drugs, starting with a perspective of biologic medicines:

“Biologic medicines have led to significant advances in the treatment of patients with serious illnesses.These medicines are large, complex molecules that are difficult to manufacture because they are made in living cells grown in a laboratory. It is impossible for a different manufacturer to make an exact replica of a biologic medicine due to several factors, including the inherent complexity of biologics and the proprietary details of the manufacturing process for the original biologic medicine, often referred to as the reference product.It is because of this that copies of biological products are referred to as “biosimilars”; they are highly SIMILAR but not identical to the biologic upon which they are based.”

Could dissemination of the above concept through a mammoth sales and marketing machine to the target audience, lead to creating a better perception that the originators’ biologic drugs are better than their biosimilar genre?

Other realities:

Despite the availability of a wide array of biosimilar drugs, the prescription pattern of these molecules is still very modest, even in India. One of its reasons, as many believe, these are still not affordable to many, due to high out-of-pocket drug expenses in India.

Thus, where other biosimilars of the same category already exist, competitive domestic pricing would play a critical role for faster market penetration, as happens with small molecule generic drugs.

Another strategic approach to address cost aspect of the issue, is to explore possibilities of sharing the high cost and risks associated with biosimilar drug development, through collaborative arrangements with global drug companies. One good Indian example in this area is Biocon’s collaboration with Mylan.

Conclusion:

The question on whether Indian biosimilar market growth is good enough, assumes greater importance, specifically against the backdrop of domestic players’ engagement in this segment, since around last two decades. Apart from the important perception issue with biosimilars , these medicines are still not affordable to many in India, owing to high ‘out of pocket’ drug expenditure. Just focusing on the price difference between original biologic drugs and their biosimilars, it is unlikely to get this issue resolved. There should be enough competition even within biosimilars to drive down the price, as happened earlier with small molecule generics.

That said, with around 100 private biopharmaceutical companies associated with development, manufacturing and marketing of biosimilar drugs in India, the segment certainly offers a good opportunity for future growth. Over 70 such drugs, most of which are biosimilar versions of blockbuster biologic, are already in the market. Today, Indian companies are stepping out of the shores of India, expecting to make their presence felt in the global biosimilar markets, as they did with generic drugs.

The future projections of biosimilar drugs, both in the domestic and global markets are indeed very bullish. But to reap a rich harvest from expected future opportunities, Indian players would still require some more grounds to cover. Overall, in terms of biosimilar drug development since 2000, India indeed stands out as a success story, but a spectacular commercial success with biosimilars is yet to eventuate.

By: Tapan J. Ray   

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

The Importance of Managing ‘Perception’ in Pharma

Posted on by
Reply

Each one of us – individually or collectively in a society, community or even as a supporter of anyone or anything, view certain things in a certain way, and tend to believe only this is true. This process consequently leads to developing a ‘perception’, which the Oxford dictionary defines as: “The way in which something is regarded, understood, or interpreted.”

A ‘perception’ once formed, creates a long-lasting impact – helps form a strong opinion, often making people judgmental in their expressions. Based on ‘perception’, people also try to act and influence others, which are not always in a persuasive manner. On the contrary, the methods, are at times rather coercive, using fear as the key. The sources that help create ‘perceptions’ may not be genuine, often fake or doctored and picked-up from half-baked, unproven and unverified provenance.

Just as any other business, in pharma industry too, stakeholder ‘perception’ plays a critical role, especially in building or tarnishing reputation of the sector or individual companies. In this article, I shall discuss, the importance of managing perception – the right way – overcoming a key barrier, for sustainable business success.

‘Perception’ often stands between success and failure or winning and losing:

In today’s world ‘perception’ often stands between success and failure or winning and losing, more than ever before. Creating and maintaining a ‘positive perception’ is time consuming and a challenging task, for anything. Interestingly, a negative ‘perception’ may also be deliberately created for self-serving purposes, and that too in a much shorter time. Although, there is a high financial cost attached to it, such instances aren’t too few, either.

Umpteen number of instances can be cited, in this regard. However, to drive home the point, let me quote just two examples – the first one is of a negative ‘perception’ mostly created by the industry from within. The other one – again a negative perception that prevails outside the industry, but mostly created due to the acts pursued within the industry. Interestingly, both these adversely impact the pharma consumers too, and are tough to neutralize.

1. ‘Perception’ created by the industry insiders:

The general ‘perception’ that ‘branded generic drugs’ are superior to more affordable ‘non-branded generic medicines’, mostly in terms of overall quality, efficacy and safety. This negative ‘perception’ has been successfully created without enough credible scientific evidence, and irrespective of names, size and the operational scale of the manufacturers. It is worth noting, both need drug regulatory approval and all such approvals come only in the generic names – and not in any brand name. The brands for a generic drug molecule may be as many as, say sixty or hundred, or even more. So are the numbers of ‘non-branded generics.’

To enable the consumers availing benefits of this category of drugs in reducing out of pocket expenditure on medicines, both the State and the Central Governments in India are trying hard through various measures, such as ‘Jan Aushadhi Scheme’. But the negative perception towards ‘non-branded generics’ doesn’t seem to wane a bit, in the face of an ongoing campaign to maintain the status quo.

2. ‘Perception’ created outside, due to the acts of the industry:

Similarly, the general negative ‘perception’ leading to a declining reputation of the industry, prevails across the world – even in India. Again, the issues leading to such negative perception may, at times, be grossly exaggerated and generalized. But the fact remains, despite serious attempts by individual companies and their lobby groups to negate the same, it continues to exist. Nevertheless,continuing efforts by the industry in this direction, which are often quite expensive, are visible globally.

Let me illustrate this point quoting a recent media report on PhRMA – arguably the largest pharma trade body globally. As the pharmaceutical industry faces potential pricing reform and continued criticism from patient advocates, PhRMA reportedly spent US$ 15.5 million lobbying in the first half of this year, which is an 11.5 percent increase (US$ 1.6 million) compared with the same period last year. But, the negative ‘perception’ is too strongly entrenched to neutralize so quickly and effectively. It continues to exist.

That the money spent to alleviate the impact of negative ‘perception’ has not yielded results since long, is vindicated by the June 19, 2018 Business Insider report. Quoting the research and consulting firm Reputation Institute, it says, in 2018, the pharma giants saw a 3.7 percent decline in reputation score from last year. This was driven by a decline in the public perception of transparency, openness and authenticity of drug makers. In the midst of an overall descending trend, of the 22 pharma companies ranked, Sanofi features in the first and Pfizer takes the last positions.

Reported practices of drug makers also influence public ‘perception’: 

While explaining why Pfizer has been ranked 22 with a strong negative ‘perception’, the same Business Insider article reported as follows:

“Pfizer had the lowest reputation score among the pharmaceutical companies that the Reputation Institute looked at, based on the general public’s perception of the product, prices and public hospitality. It was reported in May that Pfizer used charity to mask a heart drug price hike. Pfizer also had a huge role in the drug shortage crisis, according to Fortune.”

Similarly, in a relative yardstick, better public ‘perception’ for Sanofi’s among the big pharma players were ascribed to the following reasons:

“Sanofi’s winning characteristics lies in its promotion of ethics and transparency, according to Reputation Institute. Sanofi has in the past year promised to limit price increases and disclose ‘transparency reports’ behind overall costs of its drugs.”

Destructive power of negative ‘perception’ on pharma industry:

An interesting survey, titled “Restoring trust in the pharmaceutical industry by translating expectations into actions” conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) Health Research Institute captures the realities of ‘perception’ on the pharma industry. Pharmaceutical industry executives, consumers, and stakeholders, such as doctors in physician groups, researchers in academia, former health policy makers, hospital executives, managed care organization executives, participated in this survey.

The paper highlighted that ‘perception’ driven peoples’ behavior is triggered by a myriad of reasons attributing to the recent loss of trust of key pharma stakeholders’, such as regulators, payers, physicians, and patients. The authors suggested, the industry should act to restore trust as the central tenet of all of its relationships.

Two major perceptions of pharma consumers and stakeholders were captured, as follows:

  • A high percentage of pharmaceuticals in the total healthcare costs, distorts the value–for–money argument used by the industry.
  • The process and the nature, extent and quantum of money spent on pharmaceutical sales and marketing lack transparency, especially with respect to drug risks and benefits.

Constructive power of positive ‘perception’ needs to be strengthened:

Likewise, the constructive power of positive ‘perception’ needs to be strengthened.

Let me illustrate this point with three examples out of many. The first two examples come from the pharma players in India, and the third one from a top non-pharma giant.

- To add public confidence to the corporate brand and strengthen its image among its stakeholders in India, Mankind Pharma appointed Amitabh Bachchan as the brand ambassador. The company wants to primarily emphasize the importance of good health and affordable treatment for all.

- To enhance public ‘perception’ and corporate reputation further, Abbott rolled out a corporatecampaign in India – ‘live life to the fullest.’ The advertisement communicates to the people in an interesting way that “At Abbott, we’re all about helping you live the best life you can through good health. We keep your heart healthy, nourish your body at every stage of life, help you see clearly, and bring you information and medicines to manage your health. Every day and around the world, we’re discovering new ways to make life better.”

Since,the public ‘perception’ of pharma keeps getting worse, let me illustrate the point of constructive power of ‘perception’ from the huge success of several companies from the tech industry. As featured in Tech Times on July 23, 2016, in the ‘perception strength’ of customers in the world on a yearly basis, Apple Inc ranked the world’s top company in 2016 followed by Microsoft.This survey conducted by FutureBrand asked 3,000 customers to rank the big enterprises by 18 different factors, such as trust, price premium, individuality and innovation.

As defined by the survey report, “future brands” are those with a high chance to grow in the future. One of the defining characteristics of such a brand is that it has a consistent balance between the customers’ perception of its purpose and its delivered experience, the article indicated.And that’s exactly what constructive power of ‘perception’ that needs to be strengthened.

…But a key barrier to remedial measures still exists in pharma:

Regardless of industry’s intensive advocacy and multimedia initiatives, a strong negative ‘perception’ on pharma business persists. One of the reasons could be that the nature of most of these overt and covert measures questions the stakeholders for their negative ‘perception’ – justifying the industry practices. This approach often boomerangs. Consequent responses keep getting stronger – leading to a no-win situation. This arises out of a discord between the two concerned entities on the merits of the views that lead to adverse ‘perception’.

The PWC research paper quoted above also substantiates this point. It brings to the fore that pharmaceutical executives and stakeholders hold strikingly different views on a number of issues related to the development of ‘perception’ affecting the reputation.

The article, titled ‘Reputation and Its Risks’, published in the February 2007 issue of Harvard Business Review (HBR) also emphasizes, a clear recognition that reputation is a matter of ‘perception’ of stakeholders, will help companies to effectively manage their reputation. It also says, if companies fail to be in sync with stakeholders’ changing beliefs and expectations, building reputation through effective ‘perception’ management, would appear a tough call.

Conclusion:

Public ‘perception’ plays a crucial role, not just in shaping government policies and regulations, but also in the long-term business success. More positive the ‘perceptions’ are, easier will it be for the company to smoothly sail through, in business – even while navigating through occasional headwinds. Thus, the ability in shaping up a positive ‘perception’ for any business, is fast emerging as an antidote even to any possibility of getting ultimately shipped out. This ability is not dependent just on presenting hard positive facts to all concerned, but a tad more.

Which is why, it is so critical to understand the root cause of the views or ‘perceptions’ of the stakeholders in the industry or an individual company. In case of pharma, when the ‘perception’ is so negative, it will be worthwhile to neutralize it first, rather than immediately trying to counter it with a fresh coat of yet one more fact-based narrative. As a ‘perception’ is not necessarily based on hard facts, such attempts may lead to a never-ending debate on which ‘perception’ is right – ‘your perception’ or ‘my perception’, rather than ‘what is right to do’?’

There lies, therefore, the criticality of effective management of ‘perception’ in pharma. The situation, I reckon, would be even more challenging in the days ahead, if the stakeholders and the pharma industry continue to hold strikingly different views on a number of crucial issues related to the development of such ‘perception’ – further denting its already dented reputation.

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 ‘To Endeavor More To Be What It Desires To Appear’

Posted on by
Reply

Reputation is one of the most fundamental requirements for long-term sustainability of any business, without facing too much of avoidable distraction, or even a tough headwind from any hostile business environment. This fact is, of course, no-brainer. We all know it, yet continue faltering – often not so very infrequently.

Before proceeding further, let me recapitulate, how has the Oxford Dictionary defined reputation? It says, reputation is ‘the beliefs or opinions that are generally held about someone or something.’ Or in other words, it is ‘a widespread belief that someone or something has a particular characteristic.’

The subsequent logical question then arises – how to gain reputation? Again, this was very aptly captured long ago by none other than Socrates, when he said: ‘The way to gain a good reputation is to endeavor to be what you desire to appear.’

Taking a leaf from this quote, in today’s article, I shall focus on whether pharma is making enough endeavor to be what it desires to appear in the eyes of its stakeholders, and the public at large. If not, what are the ways forward.

Not all of it is pharma’s own creation:

The host of reasons for pharma’s adverse public image, may not necessarily be its own creation. Some of these could well be lying miles away from its operational domain. For example, articles such as, what appeared on July 7, 2017 in the BMJ titled, ‘We need to end cut practice in Indian healthcare,’ doesn’t seem to be much related to pharma’s direct business operations. But in many respects, the subsequent unprecedented announcement of the Maharashtra government on enacting a new law called the “Cut practices in Medical Services Act, 2017”, casts a darker shadow, not just on the doctors’ reputation, but also covers the health care industry, in general, including pharma.

Nevertheless, a commonly perceived nexus between the doctors and pharma companies, or for that matter alleged malpractices in many hospitals, also prompts a rub-off adverse perception – indirect though, on pharma’s overall reputation. Such barriers also need to be carefully navigated through.

While moving towards this direction, effective management of consumer perception is also of critical importance. For, reputation is a complex blend of both reality and perception, where perception is believed to contribute around 66 percent, and reality – about 33 percent, in various organizational efforts to gain business reputation.

Changing from a dogmatic to pragmatic approach:

The above area of adverse perceptual impact causing further dents in pharma’s reputation, is understandable, as these are beyond its control, as such. Nonetheless, what is difficult to fathom, why does pharma continue to remain so dogmatic in recreating a make-believe image, that continuously gets negated by its own actions on the ground.

To illustrate this point when I briefly look back, one of the critical themes around which, especially the research-based global drug industry has been trying to gain reputation, over a long period of time, is woven around – ‘innovation’. Concerned pharma players keep trying to gain consumers’ trust and reputation by trying to make them believe that pharma is one of the most innovative industries in the world, thus possibly trustworthy.

The same tradition continues even today. Millions of dollars are being spent through various communication and advocacy campaigns, hoping to drive home this point. Nonetheless, the current reality is that the pharma consumers hardly believe that the industry is particularly innovative today. I discussed that point in my article of July 26, 2017, appeared in this blog.

Therefore, I shall not dwell on that area again. Instead, let me try to arrive at, how is this dogmatic approach going way off the mark from consumers’ expectations, repeatedly. More importantly, why it calls for a rather pragmatic approach from pharma to gain reputation, taking well into consideration – what the patients’ or patient groups’ expectations are from the industry, based on meticulous research findings.

Patients’ recent perception on pharma reputation:

A recent report by ‘PatientView’ – a leading specialist in understanding the patient movement, and its impact on health care, captured perceptions of patient groups on the pharma industry, in this area. The report is titled, ‘Corporate Reputation of Pharma in 2016 – The Patient Perspective.’ The phrase ‘corporate reputation’, as defined in the study, is the extent to which pharma companies are meeting the expectations of patients and patient groups, and was assessed by the following three types of measures:

  • How pharma’s corporate reputation compares with that of seven other healthcare-industry sectors.
  • How pharma’s corporate reputation has changed over the past five years.
  • How good or bad the pharma industry is at various activities.

The results of this study are based on a survey conducted between November 2016 to early-February 2017 on 1,463 patient groups; 46+ specialties in 105 countries. 47 pharma companies were assessed on seven indicators of corporate reputation, as follows:

  • Patient centricity
  • Patient information
  • Patient safety
  • Useful products
  • Transparency
  • Integrity
  • Effectiveness of patient-group relationships

47 companies surveyed include names, such as AbbVie, Allergan, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Hospira, Janssen, Merck & Co, Merck KgaA, Mylan, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, Takeda, Teva, UCB and Valeant.

Some of the key findings of this survey are as follows:

  • In 2016, just 37.9 percent of respondent patient group thought that the pharma industry had an “Excellent” or “Good” corporate reputation. Whereas 44.7 percent of patient groups had said the same in 2015.
  • In 2016, only 23 percent of patient groups thought that pharma’s corporate reputation had improved over the previous five years. Whereas 28 percent of patient groups had said the same in 2015.
  • In 2016 (as in 2015), pharma continued to be ranked 5th out of eight healthcare sectors (ahead only of generics, for-profit, and not-for-profit health insurers).
  • Patient groups thought that pharma’s ability to conduct activities of importance to them declined in 2016. Patient groups were more sceptical in 2016 even about pharma’s ability to innovate, which is an important patient-group measure of confidence in the industry.
  • Regarding the quality of pharma’s innovation across several geographic areas: patient groups in New Zealand expressed the least confidence in pharma’s ability to innovate; and those in Greece, the most.

What should pharma do?

Keeping the above findings in perspective, the consequent question that arises in this area is, what should pharma do to improve its patient centricity, and thereby to gain trust and reputation?

It is interesting to note that pharma companies should ‘consider the cost of drugs’, has featured as one of the top three, in the 14-point plan proposed by the 460+ patient groups in the above study, as follows:

  • Partner with patient groups
  • Provide more or better patient services
  • Consider the cost of drugs
  • Try to understand patients
  • Develop better medicines
  • Be transparent
  • Involve patient groups in the design
  • Look at continuity of care
  • Listen to patients
  • Help patients in a holistic way
  • Increase participation in clinical trials
  • Offer training
  • Concentrate on safety
  • Tailor services to individual patients

Conclusion:

Thus, the bottom line is, among various stakeholders, patients and patient groups, play a critical role in pharma to gain reputation. Winning their trust is widely considered as the substratum to get this process rolling, effectively. In that sense, pharma players individually, and the pharma industry collectively, need to have innovative, and game changing strategic plans to win the patients’ trust, for a long-term gain in reputation.

Repeatedly trying to communicate that life-changing medicines exist, because of pharma’s years of efforts in painstaking research and development that are hugely expensive and time-intensive, doesn’t seem to be working much, any longer. Patients are increasingly expecting improved access to drugs for various treatments, coupled with related value added services, from the drug players.

In such a scenario, many top drug companies, on the other hand, publicly express: ‘we are patient-centric’. This creates a logjam, as it were, to take pharma’s ‘patient centric’ endeavors from this point to where the patients’ expectations really are. Thus, I reckon, it’s time for pharma to deeply introspect and act on what Socrates had advised a long time ago, ‘‘The way to gain a good reputation is to endeavor to be what you desire to appear.’

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.

 

Do Consumers Perceive Pharma Industry Innovative?

Posted on by
Reply

One of the world’s richest and most powerful American pharma associations, having an equally strong indirect global presence, apparently, expects all concerned to give an emphatic affirmative answer to the above question.

Vindication of this thought gets reflected in the self-description of the association claiming, it “represents the country’s leading innovative biopharmaceutical research companies. Our members are devoted to discovering and developing medicines that enable patients to live longer, healthier and more productive lives. New medicines are an integral part of the health care system, providing doctors and patients with safe and effective treatment options, and improving quality of life.”

Nearer home, the reverberations of the same could be felt when Novartis lost the Glivec patent case in the Supreme Court of India. At that time, the Wall Street Journal quoted Eric Althoff – a spokesman of Novartis saying, “If innovation is rewarded, there is a clear business case to move forward. If it isn’t rewarded and protected, there isn’t.”

In sync with this self-belief, all pharma trade associations, located across the world, intensely lobbying for the ‘research-based’ global drug companies, together with their individual members, also expect the stakeholders to believe, as if, innovation is the middle name of the pharma industry. This process continues unabated, though, is expensive, and costing millions of dollars every year.

This core intent of doing so, may well be a statement of fact to some, and a contentious one to many, for various reasons. Be that as it may, as the proof of the pudding lies in eating, it is worth ferreting out how successful these efforts have been with the consumers of pharma products. Do they generally buy this concept, and if not, why?

In this article, I shall try to explore the overall scenario in this area.

A recent study:

A recent study results released on June 12, 2017, based on a survey on this issue, and that too conducted in the homeland of pharma innovation – America, brings to the fore a startling fact. In the absence of any other, better and more credible recent study, I shall draw upon some relevant facts from this report.

Klick Health Health – reportedly one of the world’s largest independent health marketing and commercialization agency headquartered in Toronto, Ontario, conducted this survey. As the agency reports, this is an online omnibus survey, conducted between May 19 and May 21, 2017 among 1,012 randomly selected American adults. The margin of error is +/- 3.1 percent. To ensure that the findings are representative of the entire adult population of America, the results have been statistically weighted according to education, age, gender, region, and ethnicity. Discrepancies in or between totals are due to rounding, the report says.

Consumer perception on pharma innovation:

Some of the major findings on consumers’ perception regarding the innovativeness of the pharma industry, are as follows:

  • Consumers do not believe that healthcare-related industries are particularly innovative today.
  • Only 17 percent of consumers polled perceive pharmaceuticals & biotech, health & wellness, and hospital sectors as the most innovative, ranking in the 4th place after consumer electronics (72 percent), telecommunications (87 percent), and media & entertainment (90 percent).
  • Among health-related industries, respondents ranked health & wellness first in terms of the industry that should be the most innovative (17 percent), quickly followed by pharmaceuticals & biotech (14 percent), and hospitals (9 percent) trailing behind the top 5.

Some other interesting findings:

On innovation and technology, general consumer perceptions are as follows:

  • 91 percent of consumers believe that innovation will positively impact health care over the next five years.
  • 90 percent of respondents say that technology will have a positive impact on their health in the future.
  • 70 percent believe that technology will have the biggest impact in helping them personally manage their own health.nology
  • Top five technologies predicted to have the biggest impact on people’s health in next five years:

-       Health and fitness wearables (21 percent)

-       Robotics (15 percent)

-       3D printing (10 percent)

-       Smart home devices (9 percent)

-       Artificial intelligence (9 percent)

  • The survey reflects a shift in the consumer mindset from being passive recipients of healthcare to more active and autonomous individuals who appear eager to try more creative and innovative approaches to managing their health.

Another study reflects a similar perception:

Similar negative perception gets reflected in the January 17, 2017 Harris Poll, which reported only nine percent of American consumers believe that pharma and biotechnology drug makers put patients over profits.

January 17, 2017 Harris Poll, while comparing consumers’ perception among different entities in the health care space, found that only insurers have an overall worse reputation than the pharmaceutical industry.

An important area worth exploring:

When consumers do not perceive the pharma industry as innovative as the sector wishes to be, what could possibly be its reasons? While that could be a part of another discussion, it is worth exploring another important area in this article – Do the majority of global pharma CEOs have desired background to lead innovation?

Do the majority of global pharma CEOs have desired background to lead innovation?

This is yet another interesting question. A research article titled “Many CEOs Aren’t Breakthrough Innovators (and That’s OK)”, published in the Harvard Business Review on September 04, 2015 discussed this issue, well-supported by some interesting research data, while coming to a logical conclusion.

The authors indicated that they looked at the background and performance data of 297 CEOs leading the largest companies in three different industries which are widely regarded as innovative: pharmaceuticals, high-tech, and fashion retail. The data captured a 20-year period, from 1995 to 2014 (and includes both current and former CEOs).

The study highlighted, though innovation is widely regarded as important to long-term business performance, CEOs of big pharmaceutical companies, are more likely to have a background as company lawyers, salespeople, or finance managers than in medicine or pharma R&D.

A direct comparison of the same, with the other two industries in the study, which are also widely regarded as innovative, vindicates the above point, as illustrated in the following table:

CEO Background

Pharma   (%)    (85 CEOs)

High-tech (%)     (137 CEOs)

Fashion Retail (%)      (75 CEOs)
Specialist background to lead innovation

26

61

60
Industry experience in other management function, e.g. Sales, Production

48

33

29
Background in support functions, e.g. Finance, Legal

26

6

11

In this study, the researchers found that, for pharmaceutical industry CEOs, there is a statistically significant relationship between a CEO’s specialist background and the firm’s performance. A specialist background to lead innovation is worth a 4 percent better shareholder return every year for 20 years, compared to other pharma CEOs in their sample.

Innovations are mostly ‘me-too’, so is the consumer perception:

As the above article reiterates, shorter patent lives of prescription drugs mean companies must continually look for not just any new drugs to fill their pipelines, but more often with breakthrough ones, which are significantly better than what’s already on the market.

Further, the article titled “How to Revive Breakthrough Innovation in the Pharmaceutical Industry”, which is linked to publications on ResearchGate, also indicates, over more than two decades, therapeutics discoveries of pharmaceutical companies more often than not yielded compounds that are only marginally better than existing therapies, rather than breakthrough molecules.

This could well be another contributing factor in the general ‘not so positive’ consumer perception about the global pharma industry, today.

Conclusion:

There may not be a hell of a lot of argument on the fact that the drug industry has a consumer perception problem today. Even the August 2016 Gallup Poll rated pharma as one of the worst industries in the current times.

Is the collective internal effort of continuously trying to associate innovation with the global pharma industry, the right answer for the same? May be, may well be not, though, the global drug industry is incessantly trying to project, as if ‘innovation’ is its middle name, as it were.

Is it working? The obvious answer is available from various recent research studies, as enumerated above. Still, in January 2017, reportedly to rescue the image of its member companies, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, unveiled a campaign,  again basically focusing on innovation, called “Go Boldly.” It reportedly tries to communicate that the pharma industry develops life-saving medicines, and that they help keep medical costs down, because new medicines often reduce hospital stays and chronic illnesses. Is the campaign cost intensive? – Of course, yes. Is it productive? – possibly not. But who cares?

Be that as it may, today’s health care consumers perceive the global pharma industry neither as innovative nor caring, despite all its efforts. Thus, there is an important need for the pharma players to effectively bridge this perception gap in different and more innovative ways.

However, all that one can witness today, is the global pharma industry charting the same beaten path, yet again – with no further innovation in its communication – neither in content nor in its delivery platforms. That said, only time will be able to tell, whether similar efforts, renewed again and again, can reverse the consumer perception on pharma – making it seen as highly innovative and a caring industry for all.

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.