Tag Archives: performance

Enhance Customer Experience By Enhancing Employee Experience

Posted on by
Reply

Pharma is slowly but surely realizing that enhancing their customer experience can help reap a rich harvest by maximizing the business Return on Investments (ROI), significantly. However, the key architects behind creating a roadmap for the same are employees of the organization, at various levels of the hierarchy. They ferret out the cutting-edge and data-based inputs. This may, therefore, prompt a very pertinent question for many – what could then be the key drivers for enhancing the customer experience?

A Gartner research paper on ‘customer experience’ found, two-thirds of the drivers for customer satisfaction are related to “feel factors,” or how customers feel during and about their experience. It suggested that ‘leaders should take a similar approach to employee experience, focusing on influencing and improving employees’ feelings about their overall experience through the use of psychological, motivational and social principles. Improving the way the experience feels, can lead to a boost in employee engagement and support a positive company culture.’

Consequently, better the employee experience with the organization, more productive is expected to be the customer experience with the Company’s brands and services.

Against the above backdrop for the pharma industry, this article, besides exploring further developments in this area on a contemporary critical need of today’s pharma leaders. This, I reckon, is - focus on enhancing the employee experience for enhancing the customer experience.

Enhancing employee experience - more important in the new normal:

A recent McKinsey & Company article on employee experience, published on September 30, 2021 – nearly two years after the workplace upheaval by the Covid-19ew pandemic, echoed the same. It reiterated: ‘In an era of workplace upheaval, companies that create tailored, authentic experiences strengthen employee purpose, ignite energy, and elevate organization-wide performance.’

McKinsey research also found, while most people have felt supported by their organizations throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, many have struggled. This continues to linger as some companies are exploring hybrid working models, while many are expecting a full return to the office. Consequently, a gap is getting created between employees’ new concerns and employers’ expectations from them. Some of the major concerns and related expectations of many employees in the new normal, need to be addressed, expeditiously.

Some major ‘employee expectations’:

The McKinsey survey to assess employee views on work and how it has changed, commenced since the Covid-19 disrupted the world, included almost 1,000 individuals. The experience of most respondents was personal in nature and specific to an individual. However, there were several common threads, which include employees’:

  • Desire clear responsibilities and opportunities to learn and grow
  • Expect their personal sense of purpose to align with that of their organization.
  • Want an appropriate physical and digital environment that gives them the flexibility to achieve that elusive work–life balance.

The challenge, therefore, is how do leaders create a win-win situation between an employee’s new expectations and the business interest of the organization while creating a new pathway for business excellence? The researchers opined, this process would provide the leaders a unique opportunity to listen to employees on an ongoing basis and engage them on what matters most for organizational excellence—both near and long term.

Employee experience to occupy the center stage as the pandemic fades:

Based on emerging data, many experts now believe – continuously enhancing the employee experience is a prerequisite to continuously enhancing customer experience, for any sustainable business excellence in the new normal. Thus, organizational focus on the quality of employee experience is expected to occupy the center stage as the pandemic fades.

Several research findings have even gone a step forward. For instance, the Harvard Business Reviewarticle, published on January 14, 2021, on – trends that will shape the work in the new normal, pointed to an interesting area. It said: ‘Employers will shift from managing the employee experience to managing the life experience of their employees.’

Elaborating this point the author reiterated, the Covid-19 pandemic has given the business leaders significantly more visibility in the personal lives of their employees. Particularly in the last two years, as they navigate through unprecedented personal and professional challenges. The study also emphasized: ‘It’s become clear that supporting employees in their personal lives more effectively enables employees to not only have better lives, but also to perform at a higher level.’

Obviously, the question that will follow: Is there any tangible evidence to establish that enhancing the employee experience will improve organizational performance?

Focus on enhancing employee experience improves business performance:

Among studies in this area. I shall quote here a study that was conducted amid the Covid-19 pandemic. This one is Gartner’s 2020 ReimagineHR Employee Survey, which found, among others:

  • When employers develop deeper relationships with their employees there is a 23% increase in the number of employees reporting better mental health and a 17% increase in the number of employees reporting better physical health.
  • Employers who support their employees more holistically realize a 21% increase in high performers.
  • At typical organizations where employees work a standard 40 hours per week in the office, only 36% of employees were high performers. When organizations shift from this environment to one of radical flexibility where employees have a choice over where, when, and how much they work, 55% of employees were high performers.
  • The researchers concluded: “Offering employees more choices, over when, where and how many hours they work, is not only better for employees, but also better for employers who end up with more high-performing employees as a result.”  

Positive employee experience creates 16 times more engagement level:

Another McKinsey survey noted, enhancing employee experience would basically entail what they value in the life stages they are. Different propositions may attract different people. Thus, an organization needs to ascertain by talking to them on an ongoing basis, how they view their employee journeys, for delivering well-tailored interventions to maximize satisfaction, performance, and productivity. It’s worth noting that some employees now may be happier feeling a powerful sense of being able to influence outcomes that matter to them—allied with a strong sense of identity and belonging.

It also found, people with a positive employee experience have 16 times the engagement level of employees with a negative experience, and that they are eight times more likely to want to stay at a company.

Conclusion:

Another article - ‘The future of work after COVID-19’, published by the same Company, on February 18, 2021, reported something that’s worth pondering. It said, ‘that jobs in work arenas with higher levels of physical proximity are likely to see greater transformation after the pandemic, triggering knock-on effects in other work arenas as business models shift in response.’ Many pharma marketing related activities will fall in this category.

Hence, the bottom-line is, enhancing the customer experience by enhancing employee experience, will be imperative for business excellence in the new normal. However, successful accomplishment of this task on the ground by pharma leadership may not be a piece of cake. They need to walk the talk, jettisoning the traditional top-down model in most organizations of the industry.

By: Tapan J. Ray        

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

 

Fostering EQ For Pharma’s Excellence In The New Normal

Posted on by
Reply

On February 25, 2021, one of the top Indian business daily flashed a headline – “It will be working from home, post-pandemic too at many top companies.” It wrote, companies like, Tata Steel, Philips, Infosys and Maruti Suzuki are evaluating job roles to permanently enable employees working from home, or remotely – even after the pandemic. This is just one example, out of many unique outcomes of last year’s disruptive business turbulence, causing a potential mental or emotional impact on many employees.

Virtually across industries, many such significant changes have taken place in several facets of businesses including traditional operational processes. As has been widely witnessed, many desk-bound office jobs – temporarily, partly or fully – shifted to remote working – almost overnight, as it were. Such a shift is being contemplated in several work-areas by a number of drug companies, as well.

For understandable reasons, another concurrent and instant demand surfaced for a critical hard skill – involving applications digital tools and platforms. This was mostly to ensure that key business communications and customer engagements, at least, keep ticking during the crisis, despite unprecedented initial headwinds.

However, sans a catalytic soft skill that helps address several current-environment specific several organizational needs, even applications of digital skills are unlikely to be able to leverage the full potential of digitalization. While navigating through today’s uncharted frontiers, where there are no footsteps to follow, the organization will need flexibility and resilience among leadership, ensuring employee adaptability to change, and creating a new climate of fostering creativity with digital technology.

Interestingly, this soft skill – ‘Emotional Intelligence’ – often referred as ‘Emotional Quotient’ or EQ, wasn’t discussed, as much, for various reasons. In this article, I shall deliberate, why this much-known soft skill is indispensable for business excellence in the new normal – from the pharma industry perspective.

EI/EQ in business isn’t a new idea, but more important now than ever before:

Peter Salovey and John D. Mayer coined the term ‘Emotional Intelligence (EI)’ in 1990 describing it as “a form of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and action”.

In 1995, Daniel Goleman in his book ‘Emotional Intelligence’ defined EI as the ability to:

  • Recognize, understand and manage our own emotions and,
  • Recognize, understand and influence the emotions of others.

In other words, ‘this means being aware that emotions can drive our behavior and impact people (positively and negatively) and learning how to manage those emotions – both our own and others.’The ability to manage emotions is measured through Emotional Quotient (EQ).

EQ – a cutting edge of excellence, especially in the new normal:

Much before the pandemic, in 2018, McKinsey & Company had projected that between 2016 and 2030, demand for people with high EQ would grow across all industries. Again, in May 2021, the Company reiterated: ‘To meet this challenge, companies should craft a talent strategy that develops employees’ critical digital and cognitive capabilities, their social and emotional skills, and their adaptability and resilience.’

However, with unprecedented changes in pharma business dynamics, the process has been further accelerated. EQ is now expected to be a cutting edge for performance excellence – in any organization. Hence, digital savviness may not be just enough in the new order for organizational turnaround aspirants. Sans people with high EQ, among both – the leadership and staff members, digital transformation alone may not be enough for commercial success.

Long ago, Daniel Goleman epitomized it in his article - ‘What Makes a Leader?’ This was published in the Harvard Business Review (HBR) in January 2004, where he wrote: ‘IQ and technical skills are important, but emotional intelligence is the sine qua non of leadership.’ This old advice assumes even greater importance, in the new normal. 

With emotions prevailing in workplaces, high EQ improves performance:

COVID pandemic has demonstrated to all, including highly tradition bound and slow to change – the pharma industry that the name of the game of survival, particularly when a crisis strikes as a bolt from blue, is quickly adapting to changes. A time came as ‘national lockdown’ started – when a sense of losing control and confusion, virtually engulfed the work environment, which is so necessary for livelihood. A key example of these changes include, a sudden shift from remote working, related to remaining engaged with customers.

Alongside, home life and work life got merged for many. New ways of remaining in touch with customers, sometimes gave rise to a sense of seclusion or alienation, causing mental or emotional stress. Many employees’ keen desire and expectation of the return of the old normal – in the same form, are causing more emotional complications with them.

A study by EQ training provider TalentSmart also found that emotional intelligence is responsible for 58% of one’s job performance. Thus, any pharma company’s ability to be in sync with all employees, at the emotional level, is one the key requirements to boost performance. It will determine the effectiveness of digital tools given to employees to deliver the deliverables. Further, as other studies established, ‘the ability to connect with people on an emotional level – is crucial to maintaining strong and resilient teams.’

Some telltale signs of low EQ in an organization:

Some common telltale signs of low EQ in an organization, were well captured in an article with Covid pandemic in the backdrop. This was published in Inside HR on September 01, 2020. The manifestations of low EQ include, when employees:

  • Don’t want to take responsibility for their own feelings, but blame others for those,
  • Let things build up and then blow up,
  • Often overreact to life’s minor events while struggling to remain in emotional control.
  • Lack empathy and compassion,
  • Tend not to consider others’ feelings before acting,
  • Lack self-awareness of their own emotions and the emotions of others around them.

Such signals, if not addressed promptly, can lead to a number of adverse business outcomes. Especially when, quick adaptation to fundamental changes in the business environment, business operations and key customer behavior, is the name of the game. People’s EQ in an organization, could often stand between business success and failure – in the new normal, more than ever before.

Conclusion:

As pharma industry has started navigating through the new normal with wide-scale application of digital technology, employees also need to keep pace with these changes, and come on board. In such a ‘never before’ situation, emotional needs of both internal and external customers are to be properly understood, and effectively addressed, just as the need for digitalization within the organization.

Notably, low or high EQ are not genetic, neither are these pre-implanted in the brain by God. EQ comes as one learns through ongoing experience in life, and also from the advices of elderly, interaction with peers, superiors and training by professionals. This is a lifelong process of learning, which is continuously honed through practice in real life situations. It’s not bizarre, at all, if EQ of an individual has changed before, during and after the pandemic. What really matters is fathoming, how is the employee EQ today, monitor it continuously, and help the individual as and when required – to help the organization.

Several studies have established high employee EQ as a stronger predictor of success, that helps strengthen hard skills like digitalization by helping to think more creatively while using the tech tools and platforms. Thus, amid unparalleled changes in business operations, customer behavior and the need for quick adaptation to digital technology, fostering employee EQ to encourage them committing to the corporate shared goal, is an imperative for pharma’s performance excellence - more than ever before.

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.

 

What Pays More: Creating ‘Innovative ‘Customer Experience’ Or ‘Innovative Drugs’?

Posted on by
Reply

More innovative a drug is, the better is its business success rate. This was the general perception of around 92 percent pharma professionals in the past three years. Whereas the fact is: ‘Having the best product doesn’t guarantee sales anymore’. This was established by a research study of the ‘Bain & Company’ - covering multiple therapeutic areas, and was published on October 14, 2019.

It showed, when physicians prescribe a drug – its efficacy, safety and side-effect profile initially account for only 50 percent to 60 percent of the physician’s choice, with a declining trend over time. Interestingly, the other 40 percent to 50 percent of it, is based on a range of ‘physician and patient experience factors’, which pharma players need to target in innovative ways to differentiate their brands.

Many pharma companies are now experiencing the harsh reality that more innovative drugs, backed by traditional sales and marketing support are not yielding desirable financial returns. Head scratching has already started among astute pharma professionals to understand its reason for remedial measures. Thus, the number of executives who agreed with the above ‘Bain & Co’ study that: ‘Having the best product doesn’t guarantee sales anymore,’ increased to almost fourfold – from 8 percent to 28 percent in the next three years.

Thus, in this article, I shall explore whether innovation in creating a ‘unique patient experience’ during a disease treatment process, is as important, if not more than a ‘new drug innovation’. Curiously, high failure rate of most pharma players to innovate in this area, isn’t discussed as much as high failure rates in the development of innovative new drugs.

‘Customer service’ innovation – high failure rate – falling short of expectations:

Again, another article - ‘How Agile Is Powering Healthcare Innovation,’ published by ‘Bain & Company’ on June 20, 2019, brought out some interesting points related to this area. Let me quote a few of which as follows:

  • 65 percent of ‘customer-service innovation’ fall short of expectations of the target group.
  • The number of health care executives recognizing the need to respond quickly to changing customer-needs, has increased from 38 percent in the past three years to 60 percent for the next 3 years. But, most of them ‘lack the methodology, and even the language to implement it in practice.’
  • ‘Having the best product doesn’t guarantee sales anymore.’ Thus, healthcare companies face growing pressure to innovate in providing unique ‘customer experience’.
  • The critical point to note, customer needs evolve continuously, and leading companies respond rapidly with innovative new solutions catering to changing market demand.

As the core purpose of working for ‘customer-service innovation’ is linked with creating ‘brand loyalty’, let’s have a quick recap on ‘brand loyalty’ really means for pharmaceutical products, in today’s context.

‘Brand loyalty’ for pharmaceutical products in modern times:

There are many similar definitions of ‘brand loyalty’ for a pharmaceutical product. The research article – ‘Brand Loyalty as a Strategy for the Competition with Generic Drugs: Physicians Perspective,’ published in the Journal of Developing Drugs, on August 30, 2016, defined ‘brand loyalty,’ and articulated its advantages.‘ I am paraphrasing a few of which, as below:

  • The extent of the faithfulness to a particular brand, which is a major indicator of a long-term financial performance of companies.
  • The main advantages of brand loyalty can be defined as greater sales and revenue, a substantial entry barrier to competitors, increase in a company’s ability to respond to competitive threats and lower consumer price sensitivity.
  • ‘Brand loyalty’ can protect against price competition, including branded generics, as it gives confidence to physicians on the perceived effectiveness and safety of a brand – which they usually won’t be willing to compromise with for lower prices.

This brings us to a key question. Are traditional pharma methods of creating ‘brand loyalty’ getting replaced by the key consideration of creating a ‘unique customer experience’?

Creating ‘brand loyalty’ through ‘patient loyalty’ – a new equation:

It’s a fact today that traditional pharma methods of creating ‘brand loyalty’ is getting replaced by the key consideration of creating a ‘unique customer experience.’ This, in turn, is increasing the need of building ‘patient loyalty’, both for a pharma brand, as well as respective companies offering these brands. This is a new equation, where offering a ‘unique treatment experience’ to patients assumes a critical role more than ever before. This needs to be clearly understood by today’s pharma marketer, without any ambiguity.

In traditional pharma marketing, physicians remain, virtually, the sole focus of the branding exercise, as they appear to be the only decision makers of writing a brand prescription. Patients, in general, hardly used to have any role to play in that process. In this scenario, brand loyalty for the doctors – assuming the absence of any malpractices, is primarily driven by the following three much known factors:

  • Physicians’ unprejudiced buying-in a brand’s value offerings
  • Evaluation of opinion leaders and the doctors’ professional counterparts,
  • Quality of disease treatment outcomes.

Nevertheless, before getting into this area, let’s have a quick look at the primary drivers that pharma marketers have been using to boost financial performance of a brand.

Traditional sales boosters of a pharma brand:

The primary drivers that pharma marketers have been using to boost financial performance of a brand can broadly be classified as follows:

  • Multiple ways are followed to make important doctors write more prescriptions,
  • Increase the drug price, whenever an opportunity arises.

These factors still remain important, but aren’t just enough to deliver sustainable performance over a period of time. Thus, a new dimension needs to be added to it.

Add a new dimension to create brand and corporate loyalty:

With the emergence of increasingly more informed and demanding patients, there is a need to create a ‘loyal patient population’, by offering them primarily a ‘unique treatment experience’. And this is the new dimension.

For this purpose, off-the cuff approaches or strategies based on mere gut-feelings are unlikely to work. As I indicated in one of my articles, marketers need to acquire deep insights on their customers to make sales and marketing decisions more informed, than what it is today. Currently available state of the art technology can be a great enabler to facilitate this process.

This is easier said than done, because answering the question – how does a drug company create ‘brand loyalty’, is indeed a tough call. Nonetheless, many different industries have realized, since long, that offering a ‘unique customer experience’, is critical to create a pool of ‘loyal customers’.

I also had written earlier, pharma is still a late learner in accepting various new normal, in a holistic way. Accepting this reality, a sharp focus on creating ‘brand loyal doctors’ in various innovative ways, I reckon, will serve this purpose well. It’s only recently, a few companies have started working to offer such ‘experience’ to patients in the disease treatment process - end-to-end. Ironically, a large majority of them prefer to talk about it more than actually translating the same into reality.

Benefits of ‘brand loyalty’ through ‘unique customer experience’:

There are several advantages of building pharma ‘brand loyalty’ by offering ‘unique customer experience, without diluting the focus on ‘increasing prescription generation through doctors’. The benefits, I reckon, include, both new – innovative products and also branded generics. Let me give below one example of each:

  • Innovative new-products – positive word-of-mouth promotion: Satisfied patients having ‘unique end-to-end treatment experience’ with a new, innovative brand, are very likely to share it with others. This may be done by using different modes of communication, including various social-media platforms. This, in turn, may help both – add to take-off speed – post launch and create a snowballing impact on the brand adoption thereafter.
  • Branded generics – extend the product life cycle and increase growth: Patients who are loyal to a particular branded version of a generic molecule, are quite likely to refuse any change to a cheaper equivalent, even if recommended by the physician. Moreover, they will advocate for this brand to others, using different communication platforms, as indicated above. Continuation of this process will extend the life cycle of the branded-generic, with increasing growth and market share.

Conclusion:

Now, it’s time to get back to what we started with - What pays more: Creating ‘Innovative ‘Customer Experience’ Or ‘Innovative Drug?’ From the above perspective, it emerges that bringing innovative product to markets is, of course important. However, to ensure its sustainable financial success, other innovations, such as creating ‘a unique end-to-end patient experience’ with the brand, in all probability, would weigh more. This is an area which did not receive much attention for a long time, moving beyond the creation of increasing numbers of ‘brand loyal’ doctors, for business success.

Today, increasing consumerism in the health care space, besides pricing pressure, unfavorable perception and sinking image of the industry, is creating a strong headwind – impeding desirable growth of many pharma players. Such a challenging business scenario has prompted a few of them to innovate in designing a differentiated ‘customer experience’ – in a true sense.

Although, a large number of companies are talking about it, most are mere lip-services – a ground-swell in this area is yet to take place. The industry priority, in general, still weighs heavily in developing innovative products, and creating ‘brand loyal’ doctors, rather than cultivating ‘brand loyal patients’, alongside.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Reaping Rich Harvest With Orphan Drugs

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The rationale behind so high pricing:

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

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

The situation in India for such drugs:

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

How will it impact Indian patients?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The motivation behind marketing more drugs for rare diseases:

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

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

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

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

Even some familiar brands were later approved as orphan drugs:

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

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

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

Companies focus on orphan drugs for better financial results:

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Adopt A Hybrid Business Model For Better Sales – Not A Large Field Force

Posted on by
Reply

For aggressive business expansion or to attain greater market access, creating a large sales force has been the thumb rule in the pharma industry, since long. To meet the challenge of changing market dynamics, going for a thorough re-engineering of even a rattling sales and marketing machine, is still considered a risky proposition.

Many studies have captured the common reasons of such hesitations. For example, the McKinsey article titled, ‘Cutting sales costs, not revenues,’ finds that field force being a major growth engine for sales, since long, the thought of overhauling it fills senior executives with dread. Thus, to keep sales flowing, companies will make piecemeal ongoing repairs as long as they can – ‘no matter how patched up or spluttering that engine may be.’

Nevertheless, some compelling business reasons have now prompted several pharma players to accept the ground reality – fast-evolving over the last one and half decades. Many of them have realized that in today’s changing market dynamics, a leaner and smarter sales force (or field force or medical rep, or MR) will fetch the desired results than ‘flabby’ and larger ones.

In this article, I shall not discuss the obvious reasons of downsizing, such as to record profit under trying circumstances, or when per rep productivity keeps declining consistently, or during a change in the promoted product-mix, or a decision to reduce focus on volume intensive-low margin generic brands. But, what I shall discuss is, the reasons for an urgent need of creating a hybrid sales and marketing model, during this changing paradigm.  

It begins with accepting a change in the business environment: 

If the objective of sales force size reduction remains limited to cost-cutting for short-term improvement of the bottom-line, it could be grossly counterproductive, possibly with many unforeseen consequences. Field staff will continue to remain one of the key growth drivers in pharma and biotech business, but not the sole mechanism to increase brand prescriptions. Finding a well-integrated alternative model would begin with acceptance of a significant change in pharma business environment.

Undoubtedly, a perceptible change is noticeable today in pharma stakeholders’ mindset. This change is being further fueled by rapid increases in their usage of various digital platforms and networks. For example, many patients are trying to be reasonably informed of even various disease treatment options and the cost of each, much before they visit a doctor’s clinic or a hospital. The nature and quality of their interaction with health care providers, including doctors, are also changing. Patient-experience during a treatment process, and the value offerings that come with a pharma brand, will have increasing relevance to business performance – more than even before. Anything going against the patient-interest will possibly be shared with all, mostly in social media, which has a potential to precipitate serious consequences.

As this trend keeps going north, pharma market dynamics would change, commensurately, making pharma’s key business success factors significantly different with medical reps no longer being the sole prescription generators. A new hybrid – digitally empowered sales and marketing model is, therefore, the need of the hour. In this new ball game, as a growth driver, the role and size of the field staff will be quite different, where the senior management warrants a new vision for pharma business.

The situation warrants a new vision for pharma business:

In this changing situation, to generate more prescriptions from doctors by deploying a large field force, could prove akin to swimming against a strong tide. Whereas for achieving business success at this time, pharma players would require creating a well-oiled augmented value delivery system for enhanced customer experience, primarily for patients during their entire treatment process.

While creating this sleek and effective system, it would be necessary to cut unproductive or less productive flab in the frontline, with great precision. However, this process must be dovetailed with implementation of other communication and customer engagement platforms, mostly digital, to achieve the set objectives.

The new strategy being augmented value delivery to customers, the process would entail, besides innovative and modern tools, a different genre of field staff members, possessing some critical skill-sets. The goal of need-based field force downsizing complemented by new synchronous measures for operational synergy, must not only be clear to senior management, but also be explained to all concerned.

What would ‘augmented value delivery’ to customers lead to?

Another McKinsey article titled, ‘The few, the proud, the super-productive - how a smart field force can better drive sales,’ articulated: ‘Indeed, our perspective on the past five years is that leaders that used field reductions to actually rethink the commercial model – rather than taking a “blunt instrument” approach to cuts – are reaping rewards.’

As the current pharma sales and marketing models are undergoing a metamorphosis, globally – this transition phase throws several tough challenges – from defining new roles and capabilities for field staff to creative use of various interactive communication platforms.  As the McKinsey article underscores: ‘new capabilities need to be added even as we continue to use the tried and true current model, albeit with less success.  It further adds: ‘The inconvenient truth: we will have to sweat the current model and build the capabilities for the future in parallel. Those hoping for a ‘flip the switch’ transition, are likely to be disappointed.” With his, I reckon, will emerge a robust ‘augmented value delivery system’ for the business leading to:

  • Higher profitable sales through satisfied customers
  • Increase in sales per employee ratio
  • Containing/reducing sales and marketing spend as a percentage of total revenue.

Several initiatives to translate this concept into reality is now palpable, globally. A few examples may suffice to drive home this point.

Downsizing field force complemented by new measures for synergy pays:

Here also there are several research studies to bring home this point. One such is the paper titled, ‘Big pharma proves that oncology pays as workforces shrink,’ published in ’Vantage’ of Evaluate on July 23, 2018. The researchers touched upon this area while discussing the workforce productivity for Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS). It found that a substantial shrinking of its workforce, alongside some other important measures, has given BMS a big boost in sales, with a dramatic impact on its overall performance. As the study indicated, even investors will find this fact hard to ignore. Let me hasten to add that ‘downsizing workforce’ mainly involved sales and R&D staff in this analysis.

The article further highlighted, during the period of 2007 to 20017, the management teams of some other pharma majors, as well, such as GlaxoSmithKline), AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly, either reduced their workforce significantly or kept flat. According to this study the changes in the workforce of these 4 companies are as follows:

Workforce Bristol-Myers Squibb GlaxoSmithKline AstraZeneca Eli Lilly
2007 42,000 103,483 67,400 40,600
2017 23,700 98,462 61,100 40,655

However, even in the year 10, all the four companies - Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly posted not just sales growth, bit all-round performance improvement, as may be seen by clicking on each.

Having deliberated on the impact of downsizing field force, let me now focus on powerful complementary measures for augmented value delivery to customers.

Today’s reality for pharma business in India can’t be wished away:

The EYstudy titled, ‘Reinventing pharma sales and marketing through digital in India,’ captures the current situation quite well. I am quoting below just a few of those:

  • Today’s tech-savvy physicians are relying far less on reps and more on digital devices for healthcare information. Only 11 percent of healthcare professionals in India prefer in-person visits from a company representative, according to a 2016 study by Health Link Dimensions. Likewise, many patients arming themselves with medical knowledge available online, gradually relying less on only physicians’ decision-making. Thus, the rules of engagement need to be redefined.
  • With a shift in focus toward more complex or specialty medicines, pharma companies continue to add new layers of MRs to increase geographic coverage. The increasing number of MRs and the number of brands under each of them have drastically reduced the time and quality of sales pitches – from being scientific to mere brand name reminders.
  • Physicians’ place at the center of the pharma ecosystem as almost the sole-decision makers, is very likely to become a thing of the past with the emergence of a broad array of customers with a new mindset.
  • New tech-based entrants providing information platforms, analytics, e-consultation services and access to medicine online are challenging pharma’s value creation story.

Enhancing customer experience needs a hybrid business model:

The new market dynamics, demands cutting-edge brand-value augmentation measures, enhancing customer-experience with some tangible benefits. These telltale signs can only be ignored at one’s own peril. Let me also illustrate this point with the findings from another research study.

According to 2015 Oncology Customer Experience Tracker of ZS, “Oncology companies can add USD 50 – USD 75 million in incremental sales for every USD 1 billion in current sales by delivering a better customer experience.”

This vindicates that creating a better customer experience should be the key goal of pharma’s augmented value delivery system – going much beyond the traditional communication of key product features and its clinical benefits. This new concept is fast emerging as the fulcrum – not just for creating a strong brand pull, but also enhancing the public image of the organization. And can be achieved with a right blend of:

  • ‘Must do’ mindset of top management,
  • Expertise in well-targeted – multi-channel content making,
  • Expertise on data-science and analytics to churn out the right information from a large pool of data,
  • Wherewithal for effectively using the right digital platforms, either directly to customers or through a leaner and digitally-skilled sales force having a ‘can do’ attitude, as the situation will demand.

Some companies are testing the water:

Conventional ways to improve Sales Force Effectiveness (SFE), especially with soft skills, besides, of course product knowledge, is not new to the pharma players. What they need to do is change the primary focus of increasing sales through delivering mostly the key intrinsic value of the brand, to increase profitable sales by delivering augmented brand value, leading to enhanced customer satisfaction.

This is a major shift from the traditional paradigm and would surely entail application of digital technology and data science. As I wrote before, many companies have started adopting this approach – mostly with one baby step at a time, right or wrong.

Observation and findings of an India specific study: 

Noting that ‘Indian pharma’s journey to a digital world has just begun,’ the same EYstudy, as quoted above, reported the following findings, among a few others:

  • Lack of a clear digital strategy/value proposition and change management are the two key barriers to embracing digital.
  • Whatever was being done manually earlier is now being done digitally. But we are not adding additional value. On the other hand, companies globally are now cautiously moving toward being digital practitioners.
  • Indian pharma majors will need to grow into integrated health care providers – offering both products and services, forging patient-centric partnerships and demonstrating value to a broad array of customer groups.

The good news is, some of the key observations of the study also include the following:

  • Some are using digital technology to capture untapped and unstructured data, to make their sales and marketing decision making process more agile and robust.
  • Powerful apps with dynamic, meaningful content and the right value proposition are gaining popularity.
  • Several players, while staying within the realms of regulatory boundaries, are enabling patients to actively manage their care. 

Conclusion:

As we look around, many drug companies, especially in India, continue to remain focused on the age-old transactional sales and marketing models, delivering the intrinsic brand values, irrespective of the changing pharma market dynamics, especially disregarding what today’s customers in the knowledge economy look for. Traditional training and incentivizing a large, and often flabby, sales force on product and rupee value territory-sales against the target, are the general ways to achieve these. The focus on achieving the internal sales targets, regardless of the processes being contentious or not.

Modern time warrants a different conversation altogether – creation of a unique customer experience – with augmented value delivery systems. Achieving this goal would entail astute applications of modern technology, complementing the reach and impact of the right-sized field staff efforts, and leading to improvement in ‘sales per employee ratio.’

Thus, I reckon, higher sales or the need for an expanded market access, may not necessarily entail a larger field force, but a new breed of leaner and especially skilled MR to deliver the needs of the changing healthcare landscape.

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.

A New Pharma Marketing Combo Places Patients At The Center Of Business

Posted on by
Reply

As discussed in several of my previous articles, most pharma players need to walk the talk on ‘patient-centricity’, coming out of prevailing high decibel lip-service. This is not an easy task, and far from being every company’s cup of tea.

Effective implementation of patient-centricity by an organization, entails understanding of behavioral science by today’s pharma marketers. Many of them, I am sure, have already studied it in Business Schools. Be that as it may, by harnessing this scientific knowledge, the insights that they will acquire on primary and secondary pharma customers, will be unique. The important cues that will come out of the insights, will help them create well- targeted strategic marketing game plans having a cutting-edge. When implemented on an ongoing basis, this will help catalyze a win-win business environment, for reaping a rich harvest over a long period of time.

In today’s article, I shall dwell on the increasing relevance of an interesting combo of behavioral science – predictive analytics and patient-centricity, for a sustainable business performance. This is especially for the millennial pharma marketers to try and implement. With blessings from the top management, this model will help them jettison – the increasingly counterproductive – ‘gratification model’ of pharma business, imbibing ‘patient-centric ones’ – that patients themselves can feel and will appreciate.

The basic requirements to make it happen:

The basic requirements of the pharma companies to make it happen is to gradually move away from its core strategy of ‘buying prescriptions’ that often happens through contentious means. No doubt, it has the power to create a temporary strong brand push. But is definitely not sustainable, as these usually go against patients’ health and economic interest.

For a sustainable demand for a pharma brand, pharma companies would need to design a strong ‘brand pull’ in the new paradigm. This would prompt drug companies acquiring deep insights on how to leave a cherishing treatment experience with the patients for the brand. This would, consequently, have a strong-positive rub-off effect on the corporate image, as well. Likewise, a doctor would also like to know, how to create similar patient-experience with his treatment, to draw more of them in the future. This is diametrically opposite to generation of demand for a brand through ‘payment to doctors for prescriptions.’

Pharma marketer’s understanding of behavioral science is necessary:

This is because, it helps to get targeted deep-stick studies done on the way pharma customers, such as doctors and patients, behave. The span of the behavioral study should commence from the onset of a patient’s search for a disease treatment process, right up to when the individual gets an ‘after treatment experience’ – good, bad or average. It is, therefore, necessary for a drug company, to become more patient-centric, rather than self-serving, for achieving the desired goals of pharma business, consistently.

This wisdom would enable pharma marketers developing the following five broad insights for being ‘patient-centric’:

  • Understanding the process of thinking of a type or a group of patients about making their treatment choices. It could often mean not going for any treatment at all, or not adhering to prescribed treatment.
  • What makes patients behave the way they do, while undergoing a treatment?
  • Understanding both mental and physical feelings of patients while suffering from certain disease conditions, for effective engagement with them.
  • What type of holistic treatment experience the patients would value most to cherish.
  • What type of treatment experience the doctors would value most to provide to patients to enhance their practice and professional reputation.

While doing so, pharma marketers would need to clearly harmonize the two areas – one pertaining to doctors, and the other involving patients. This is important for the purpose of a clear focus on a comprehensive brand strategy formulation, based on well-analyzed data.

The key point to note, however – a creative blend of behavioral science with new-age pharma marketing tools can bring a sea change in the business performance of a company, along with providing a delightful treatment experience to patients with its drugs.

Generation of a huge pool of customer behavioral data is the starting point:

The first step of making a patient-centric organization is the generation of a huge pool of data on customer-behavior dynamics. That said, making predictions on the company’s customer behavior for future outcomes of the brand performance, from this data pool, would involve the use data analytics, which for this purpose will be ‘predictive data analytics.’

The use of ‘predictive analytics’ in pharma marketing:

In my article titled, ‘Data: The New Magic Wand For Pharma Business Excellence’, published in this Blog on October 01, 2018, I discussed the importance of well targeted data-based decision-making process, across the pharma functional areas. Taking this idea forward, let me explain here the critical role that ‘predictive data analytics’ can play in acquiring insights of the trend of behavior of the customers, especially patients and doctors.

Simply put, ‘predictive analytics’ is a type of advanced analytics, which are used to get deep insights and making well-informed predictions, based on both past and current data feeds. In pharma, especially for the subject that I am discussing, it pertains to insights on doctor and patient behavior related predictions, encompassing the entire span of a disease treatment process. Skillfully executed, this will strengthen, at least, two critical success factors in the pharma business:

  • Acquiring predictable insights on the targeted customers’ behavioral trend and pattern any given time-frame.
  • With such customer insights making the organization ‘patient-centric’ for more effective engagement with its customers.

Combining the above two points, I can well say, by analyzing a huge pool of data from behavioral-science-based information – ‘predictive analytics’ helps acquire deep insights on predictable customer behavior, with high precision. These are so useful, not just for better engagement with doctors, patients and other stakeholders, but also in making the organization patient-centric, in true sense. Nevertheless, many still question - Is ‘patients centricity’ really feasible in the pharma industry?

Is ‘patient centricity’ really feasible in the pharma industry?

This question was also raised in the 2017 paper titled, “Patient Centricity and Pharmaceutical Companies: Is It Feasible?” -  published in Vol. 51(4) of the Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science (TIRS). The paper captures patient-centricity as integrated measures for listening to and partnering with patients, and placing patients’ well-being at the core of all business initiatives. It represents a holistic approach to the disease management process.

The concept brand-oriented patient-centricity is not too difficult to understand. But, I reckon, the difficulty lies somewhere else. It is to fathom where and how a pharma player can predictably add differentiating value, for those patients who need a right kind of treatment. That’s why, the question of feasibility of ‘patient-centricity’ is being raised.

There is no doubt that such an effort presupposes considerable insights on patients’ behavior, alongside the requisite expertise to predict these, for different time-frames, with a great degree of precision. This not an insurmountable task, either, particularly in today’s paradigm – with state-of-the-art ‘predictive data analytic’ tools. This prompts me to believe, it is very much possible to make a truly patient centric organization, assuming that there will exist a strong will to survive in the business and prosper!

Are ‘predictive data analytics’ different from other analytics?

Yes, the following two key points make ‘predictive data analytics’ quite different from other data analytics:

  • General data analytics usually help acquire insights on the past and present.
  • Whereas, predictive data analytics help looking at near-mid and long-term future, regarding most probable customer behavior pattern and trend, with great accuracy.

Currently, with the ability to generate relevant and real-time big data pool, together with application of machine learning, data-mining and statistical modelling – predictive analytics have the power to help acquire future insights. This insight is totally data-based, sans any gut-feel. Thus, effective use of this process can enable pharma players effectively predict trends and behaviors of doctors and patients for meaningful engagement with them for their chosen brands.

Has potential to create a win-win outcome: 

To ensure a game-changing payback from this process, crafty dovetailing of the following three steps, complementing each other is critical:

  • Generate a huge pool of real-time data on doctors’ and patients’ behavior pattern, for a pre-selected time-frame.
  • With the knowledge of behavioral science, help analyze them with predictive analytics.
  • Understand from the results, the trend of behavioral dynamics of selected customers from the brand perspective.
  • Frame rewarding business strategies to create a win-win situation, involving both – the pharma players and the patients.

Some pharma players are on the ball:

One of the key reasons for imbibing patient-centricity, is the proliferation of ‘me-too’ types of brands – both patented and generics. It has started happening even in the market of high-priced oncology medicines, with not much difference in price between them.

In this situation, predictive data analytic tools can help understand multi-variable relationship between patient’s needs, their interaction with physicians, the oncologist’s prescriptions to them, type of physician-engagement of drug companies and patients’ experience before, during and after the treatment. This is not an easy task, nor all pharma companies have wherewithal of doing this, to gain brand market share, significantly.

With predictive data analytics, many pharma companies are keeping eyes on the ball, using it in different business areas, such as drug discovery. But not many of them, are using this combo-approach to make a patient-centric pharma organization. It is just a matter of time, I reckon, that global pharma will decide to move in this direction – fortified with deep pockets, but with a battered reputation, and facing a hostile pricing environment, across the world.    

Conclusion:

Customer insights, acquired through the crafty application of behavioral science, have immense potential to make sales and marketing decisions more informed, than what it is today. In tandem, it will help create a ‘worth remembering’ treatment experience for the patients with the brand used.

From this perspective, I reckon, skillful application of behavioral science to generate a huge pool of data, and their analysis with ‘predictive analytics’ will go a long way to create a truly ‘patient-centric’ organization.

When executed by a well-integrated expert team of market research, medical affairs and pharma marketing professionals, this new marketing-combo-approach has the potential to fetch a game-changing performance outcome, placing patients at the center of business. The net gain to the organization will be much more than the sum total of what each of these steps can ensue individually – remarkably enhancing corporate reputation, in tandem.

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.

Trees Die From The Top: Apt For Pharma Leadership Too?

Posted on by
Reply

The Management Guru of all-time – Peter F. Drucker once said: “The spirit of an organization is created from the top… If an organization is great in spirit, it is because the spirit of its top people is great.” As “Trees die from the top”, no one should ever become a strategist unless he or she is willing to have his or her character serve as a model for subordinates – Drucker emphasized.

Decades after this assertion from Drucker, meant for management practitioners, it is discernible even today how irrefutable these axioms are.  In the contemporary times, as well, particularly when reality bites a company hard, being caught on the wrong side of ‘generally acceptable’ ethics, value and compliance standards.

While zeroing in to pharma, soundbites usually generated at that time, especially from the top echelon of the management, seem to hint that employees down the rung are responsible for such misdeeds, besides, of course, the legacy factor.

At this moment of truth, it is also not unusual for them to romancing the utopia, as it were. Senior management comes out with several ideas, which are squeaky clean in terms of optics. Some of them also talk about introducing behavior metric on ethics and values in employee performance appraisal before releasing any performance related pay out. In this article, I shall focus on this leadership issue in view of some latest developments in this area.

The latest developments:  

Let me now come straight to the latest developments in this area, as I see around.

“Novartis links bonuses to ethics in bid to rebuild reputation” – was a headline of Reuters on September 18, 2018. It reported: “Swiss drug maker Novartis has revealed its employees only get a bonus if they meet or exceed expectations for ethical behavior as it seeks to address past shortcomings that have damaged its reputation.”

Some interesting points stand out from this report on the ownership of such alleged malpractices. These reconfirm that the reasons for the same, including the repeated allegations of such nature, are being passed on to others by the top management. For example:

  • To past practices or the legacy factor, even if the current CEO has been a part of that corporate environment, since long.
  • To employees responsible down the line, and a new system is being adopted to address the issue.

In this case, as Reuters reports: “Chief Executive Vas Narasimhan has made strengthening the Swiss drug maker’s ethics culture a priority after costly bribery scandals or legal settlements in South Korea, China and the United States.”

Interestingly, as reported by the media, “the company was also this year embroiled in a political controversy over payments it made to U.S. President Donald Trump’s ex-attorney.”  Previously, even in the clinical trial area, Japanese authorities, reportedly “uncovered serious misconduct during a trial of its leukemia drug, Tasigna.”

As I said above, in response to such incidents, the General Counsel of Novartis, reportedly expressed: “This allows us to look at the behavior metric before any money leaves Novartis and catch potential misconduct before there is any risk to our reputation.” The official further added, “You can expect us to continue focusing on resolving the legacy issues that we read about in the press, ensuring we address any remaining underlying behaviors.”

Such steps not taken for the first time by a pharma company: 

EvenGlaxoSmithKline tried something akin in the past.

“GSK scraps sales rep targets after scandal,” was the headline of December 17, 2013 edition of the Financial Times. It reported: “GlaxoSmithKline is to scrap individual sales targets for its commercial staff as it seeks to repair its image and reform working practices in the wake of allegations in China that its staff paid officials up to $500m in bribes. The move comes amid concerns over aggressive marketing across the pharmaceutical industry and follows a series of damaging regulatory probes leading to a record $ 3bn fine in the US last year.”

However, later on GlaxoSmithKline, reportedly “altered the plan when its sales began to suffer in the world’s largest market.”

Where is the real issue lying?

As“PwC‘s 21st CEO Survey: Preparing for disruption” found, 71 percent of CEOs surveyed said that their organizations face greater pressure to deliver business results in less time.

There isn’t an iota of doubt, I reckon, that pharma CEOs are under constant performance pressure from the investors and other stakeholders to deliver expected financial results. This makes them keep their eyes primarily glued on to the grindstone for churning out expected profits from the business. This also means that they expect management efforts to be generally directed to deliver ‘values’ at the least possible cost.

On the other hand, the same PwC survey findings reiterated that with rising drug costs, the demand for the drug companies to demonstrate the treatment efficacy, is increasing by manifold. Thus, “to remain competitive, Big Pharma will have to do things faster (like drug development) and cheaper for the patient, add more value for the same money, and become more proactive partners with patients and doctors in both wellness and cure” - one of the findings of this study emphasized.

It is quite common for most large to medium sized pharma companies to have in place a well-articulated organizational ‘ethics, compliance and values’, together with requisite checks and balances in the form of rigorous rules, regulations and other guidelines.

Most often these adorn the respective websites too, for public knowledge. The question, therefore, surfaces what could then possibly go wrong in the organization and where exactly does the real issue lie, while effectively managing the organizational growth?

“Non-compliance – A serious challenge to growth”: 

Serious malpractices and their related fallout in pharma business – not just in marketing, but clinical trials, manufacturing, quality assurance and other areas, are not usually due to any lack of requisite processes or expertise. These are generally serious consequences of non-compliance of various organizational norms. At times, with the indirect support of senior management, or senior management keeps their eyes closed on such non-compliances, under demanding obligation for delivering expected financial results and business growth.

Tweaking areas, such as employee performance-incentive norms, as happened in the cases of GSK or Novartis, can’t fetch a long-lasting solution in such a situation, as I see it. Nonetheless, the survey report findings of Deloitte, titled “Non-compliance – A serious challenge to growth,” are interesting to get a sense of the reasons behind the same.

Key reasons for non-compliance: 

The Deloitte report identifies some key contributors to malpractices and non-compliance in the pharma sector, indicating the percentage of survey respondents involved against each, as follows:

  • Lack of an efficient internal control/ compliance system:  61 percent
  • Weak regulatory enforcement / action taken against fraudsters:  55 percent
  • Inadequate utilization of technology tools available to identify red flags:  45 percent
  • Lack of a zero-tolerance approach towards malpractice and regulatory non-compliance:  45 percent
  • Inadequate due diligence on employees/ third party associates:  36 percent
  • Unrealistic targets/goals linked to monetary compensations:  33 percent
  • Senior management override of controls:  24 percent
  • Inadequate oversight by the Board/ Audit Committee:  06 percent

As I mentioned before, most key contributors to malpractice and non-compliance point towards a lack of senior management efficiency in internal controls, systems, and “inadequate utilization of technology tools available to identify red flags.” Curiously, no one mentions about the requirements for any fresh measures or systems to curb such incidents, in the future.

Just tweaking the present system may not help:

Just for changing the optics, tweaking the present system often doesn’t help. Many similar instances in the past, such as GSK’s example, as cited above, would vindicate this point. In the GSK case, at least, it’s the then CEO – Sir Andrew Witty expectedly realized that ‘unrealistic targets/goals linked to monetary compensations’ lead to such corruptions.

But total delinking of the core responsibility of any sales staff, namely ‘generation of top-level numbers both in volume and value’, with performance incentive, could throw some future challenges. Similar reason, presumably prompted GSK altering the plan when its sales began to suffer, at a later date.

Similarly, Novartis is, reportedly introducing a new behavioral metric as qualifying criteria for its employees to earn bonuses or incentives. Intriguingly, despite the existence of rigorous rules, regulations, guidelines and associated punitive provisions for not complying with the company ethics and values for a long-time, malpractices are still being reported today.

Thus, I wonder, how will an additional system of similar nature prevent recurrence of such incidents in the future? Anyway, only the future will tell whether a tweaking of this nature in the present system that did not work in the past, will work in this particular case effectively.

Conclusion:

The reasons for less than adequate internal controls of an organization, I reckon, fall squarely on the senior management, especially for repeat offences. Passing the blame to employees down the line or tweaking their performance appraisal system by introducing a ‘behavioral metric’, is likely to be short term, finger-pointing on the legacy factor notwithstanding.

On the contrary, these may likely to be construed as manifestations of knee-jerk reactions, and not so well-thought-out strategic measures. Neither do such repeated malpractices demonstrate a great spirit of the organization, nor do these evince astute leadership qualities of its top management.

Coming back to where I started from, quoting what the management guru Peter Drucker once said: “The spirit of an organization is created from the top… If an organization is great in spirit, it is because the spirit of its top people is great.” He also reiterated, no one should ever become a strategist unless he or she is willing to have his or her character serve as a model for subordinates This is certainly not the situation for those pharma players mired with alleged malpractices, repeatedly – not just in marketing, but in other operational areas too.

As the good old saying goes: “trees die from the top,” so is also an organization when its senior management lacks a moral compass on ethics, compliance and values. Considering what is being often reported on business malpractices within the drug industry, isn’t the saying equally apt for pharma leadership, as well?

By: Tapan J. Ray   

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

Organic and Inorganic Growth Strategy For Sustainable Business Excellence

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

Two basic types of growth strategies:

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

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

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

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

When does a company choose predominantly inorganic growth path?

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

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

Inorganic growth and key management challenges:

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

The examples:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two interesting leadership examples:

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

Was there any difference in their growth strategy?

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

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

Pfizer did contemplate changing course:

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

Sustained value creation following the same path not easy:

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray   

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