UCPMP 2024: Game Changer or False Dawn?

Posted on March 19, 2024 by Tapan Ray

On March 12, 2024, the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) of the Government of India notified the new Uniform Code for Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) 2024.

Having gone through the details, many construe that aiming to finally clean up pharmaceutical marketing practices in India, as demanded by many stakeholders – including the Supreme Court of India, the new one released by the DoP in March 2024 still appears to be a ‘work in progress.’ One therefore, wonders whether UCPMP 2024 is a step forward or status quo in establishing desirable standards for pharma business ethics in India.

In this article, let me dwell on this issue, highlighting examples of some key points in this regard.

Some key points to take note of:

There are several key points to take note of some examples, which will include:

Unlike its predecessor, the 2024 UCPMP removes the word “voluntary” but doesn’t explicitly make the code mandatory. It requests industry associations to implement the code.
The code doesn’t explicitly prescribe penalties for pharmaceutical companies beyond removal from industry associations (if they are members).
Doctors who violate ethical codes can face license suspension and fines under the National Medical Commission (NMC) guidelines. However, the NMC’s stricter 2023 code revisions were put on hold due to industry pressure.

Thus, several issues, including the following, need to be answered, beyond any ambiguity whatsoever. That said, let me start with how the UCPMP 2024 brings both opportunities and challenges for Indian drug companies, and then we will try to fathom whether the new code as it presents today will prove to be a game changer to improve the quality of ethical standards, especially, in Indian pharmaceutical marketing.

UCPMP 2024 – some key challenges for drug companies:

A. Marketing Revamp: The new UCPMP demands a complete overhaul of marketing practices and strategies. Companies need to find new, compliant ways to educate doctors about their products, likely focusing on:

Scientific Data and Value Proposition: Stronger clinical trial data and highlighting a drug’s actual benefits will be crucial.
Transparency and Credibility: Building trust with doctors through clear, accurate information and high-quality educational materials is essential.

B. Salesforce Transformation: Medical representatives, previously reliant on personal connections, now need expertise in:

Scientific Communication: Effectively engaging doctors with the science behind the drug.
Product Knowledge: Deep understanding of the drugs they are promoting.
Potential Sales Slump: Stricter marketing might lead to a decline in sales, particularly for established brands that rely heavily on promotion. Companies need to adapt their sales strategies to address this.

Effectively navigating these challenges requires significant investments in:

R&D: Stronger focus on research and development to create innovative drugs with a clear value proposition.

Data-Driven Marketing: Utilizing data science to understand doctor needs and target marketing efforts effectively.

Salesforce Training: Upskilling representatives in scientific communication and product knowledge.

By adapting their approach, Indian drug companies can leverage UCPMP as an opportunity to move towards a model focused on the quality and scientific merit of their products.

UCPMP 2024 – some key opportunities for drug companies:

The UCPMP 2024, while presenting challenges, also offers some key opportunities for Indian drug companies to thrive:

Level Playing Field: The ban on gifts and incentives removes an unfair advantage for larger companies. This allows smaller or generic drug companies to compete based on the merits and affordability of their products.
Focus on Innovation: With less emphasis on promotion, companies may be incentivized to invest more in R&D, leading to the development of new, innovative drugs with stronger scientific backing.
Building Brand Trust: Transparency and accurate information mandated by UCPMP can help companies build trust with doctors and patients alike. This strong reputation can be a valuable asset in the long run.
Data-Driven Marketing: The shift towards data-driven marketing allows for targeted communication based on doctor needs and preferences. This can be more cost-effective and lead to better engagement with healthcare professionals.
Focus on Patient Education: UCPMP encourages companies to provide clear information directly to patients. This can empower patients to make informed decisions about their healthcare and potentially increase the demand for effective medication.

By capitalizing on these opportunities, Indian drug companies can:

Differentiate themselves: By focusing on innovation and patient-centricity, they can carve out a niche in the market.
Building long-term value: Investing in R&D and building trust with doctors can lead to sustainable growth and brand loyalty.
Becoming more competitive globally: A focus on innovation and scientific merit can help Indian companies compete effectively in the international pharmaceutical market.

Interestingly, the UCPMP presents a chance for Indian drug companies to move away from an outdated marketing model and embrace a more ethical and sustainable approach. By focusing on innovation, data-driven marketing, and building trust, they can seize this opportunity to become leaders in the global pharmaceutical industry.

Is UCPMP 2024 a game changer or a false dawn?

Having said all this, the question still remains whether UCPMP 2024 is a game changer or a false dawn. I reckon, while aiming to curb unethical practices in the pharmaceutical industry, questions linger about its effectiveness. Let’s delve into both sides of the argument:

A Game Changer:

Stronger Stance: The removal of “voluntary” from the code suggests a stricter approach compared to its predecessor.
Focus on Transparency: Provisions like mandatory expenditure disclosure for conferences organized by pharma companies could increase transparency.
Addressing Travel & Hospitality: Discouraging pharma-funded travel and hospitality for doctors might reduce undue influence.
Potential for Improved Ethics: A well-enforced UCPMP could lead to a more ethical environment where marketing focuses on the merits of drugs rather than lavish incentives.

False Dawn:

Missing Teeth: The lack of clear penalties beyond industry association removal for pharma companies raises concerns about enforcement.
Rollback of NMC Code: The NMC’s stricter code for doctors with potential financial penalties was rolled back due to industry pressure. This weakens the overall impact.
Ambiguity on Non-Member Companies: The code’s effectiveness might be limited if pharmaceutical companies outside industry associations are not held accountable.
Uncertain Implementation: The success of UCPMP hinges on robust implementation and a clear mechanism to address violations.

Conclusion:

From the above perspective, the true impact of UCPMP 2024 remains to be seen. While it has positive intentions, its effectiveness depends on stricter enforcement mechanisms, penalizing violations, and ensuring all companies are held accountable. Only time will tell if UCPMP 2024 ushers in a new era of ethical practices or remains a symbolic but unenforced reform.

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.

Leverage Increased Focus On ‘Self-Care’ For Better Patient Outcomes

Posted on January 24, 2022 by Tapan Ray

‘People have been practicing self-care for thousands of years. Now an increase in self-care interventions is shifting the way health care is perceived, understood, and accessed, and adding to the many medicines, diagnostics, and technologies available for people to use by themselves.’ This was articulated in an article titled, ‘Self-care during the COVID-19’, published by the World Health Organization (W.H.O) on June 12, 2020.

That COVID-19 prompts increased focus on self-care was also vindicated by several research studies, including some conducted by global pharma majors, such as GSK, Johnson & Johnson, Sanofi as you will find below. In this article I shall, therefore, deliberate whether an increasing focus on ‘self-care’, as a critical service to patients can fetch better disease treatment outcomes with respective pharma brands in the new normal. Moving in that direction, let us first be on the same page about the definition of ‘self-care’.

‘Self-care’ and its key benefits?

The W.H.O defined self-care as: ‘Your ability to promote health, prevent disease, maintain health, and cope with illness and disability with or without the support of a healthcare provider is known as self-care.’ Regular practice of self-care offers a holistic interlinked benefits to its practitioners, which many people have started experiencing during the COVID-19 pandemic.

As observed by BMI Healthcare, some of these benefits include:

Improving your physical health: By committing to looking after your body and becoming more attuned to its needs.
Reducing stress and anxiety: By making time for relaxing activities.
Boosting self-esteem: By helping to calm your nerves, taking time to relax and look after yourself can have a positive impact on the way you see yourself. Treating yourself with kindness can also make you look upon yourself kindlier. Studies have found that people with higher self-esteem find it easier to deal with setbacks and are more likely to achieve goals of self-improvement.
Protecting mental health: By making changes to prioritize self-care can help to manage mental health issues and might even prevent them from getting worse.
Fostering better relationships: Happier and healthier you are, the more you can give to a relationship. This is especially important if you are a parent or career. It can be so easy to put someone else’s needs first, but you must look after your own health too.

Pharma companies also echoed that COVID-19 has boosted self-care:

As I wrote above, besides W.H.O, several global pharma majors have also recently conducted their own research studies this area, for several reasons. One such research, shared by GSK Consumer Healthcare and IPSOS on 20 July 2020, reiterated that ‘the COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on people’s behavior and attitudes to self-care.’ The study also endorsed, the pandemic has impacted attitudes towards personal wellbeing and self-care. This gets reflected on the increased importance that many people are now placing on looking after their own and others’ health.

Another article, published in the Johnson & Johnson website on September 16, 2021, emphasized the same point. The Company reiterated, self-care – a holistic and preventive way to look after one’s health and wellness – is more than a passing trend. It’s a lifestyle shift that’s here to stay – one that has only been accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The paper highlighted, ‘According to one recent national survey, 80% of adults said they intend to be more mindful about practicing self-care regularly after the pandemic. And global research conducted this year found that consumers’ prioritization of wellness has jumped as much as 65% in the past two to three years.’

Recently, even Sanofi in its website acknowledged, ‘COVID-19 highlights Value of self-care as a first line of defense.’ The article added, although, ‘there has been a global trend towards wellness for some time now, but the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated it. It also endorsed that defensive wellness is growing exponentially with people trying to protect their own health alongside their families. So, there has been a shift in attitudes in how people are practicing self-care, especially, as face-to-face consultations with doctors are now more difficult.

Why ‘self-care’ concept got a boost during COVID-19 pandemic?

There are several reasons behind such unprecedented boost in practicing self-care within the global population. The key ones include intense and continuous public messaging by various governments in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, has emphasized the importance of self-care by manifold. Some of these self-caring activities, such as, social distancing, wearing face masks and other preventative hygiene measures, which have been pivotal in the disease control process.

The national campaigns to tackle the virus with various social measures deployed by citizens, in tandem with traditional public health interventions, like testing and contact tracing, have been widely supported by NGOs, media and key influencers in many sectors. The core message has been, staying home or working from home, and observing government guidelines is – ‘doing your bit’ for others, as well as yourself. The same was also well-articulated in a paper – ‘Self-care and health: by all, for all. Learning from COVID-19’, published by the Mitchell Institute, Victoria University, in July 2020.

‘Self-care’ messaging in the old and new normal – the key difference:

Several pharma companies have tried to understand what factors prompted to accelerate the ‘self-care’ process during the pandemic, as compared to the old normal. And what is the key difference in the core messaging content. For example, Sanofi construed that the self-care messages in pre-pandemic period were generally ‘positive’ ones, such as benefits of practicing yoga and other changes in the general lifestyle activities. Whereas, during the pandemic, the message has been very different. It generally revolved round the ‘fear of the unknown’ that can jeopardize lives and livelihoods.

This factor emerged as a powerful motivator in accelerating a shift to life-saving preventative wellness – not just for self, but also for others. An overwhelming sense of uncertainty put a different perspective altogether to ‘self-care’, especially, for people with co-morbidities or pre-existing health conditions, being more vulnerable to die from COVID-19 infection.

Can pharma leverage the win-win opportunity?

A global study by McKinsey & Company in this area, published on April 08, 2021, vindicated the increasing trend of self-care among global population. Elaborating the point, it said: ‘These days, consumers view wellness through a much broader and more sophisticated lens, encompassing not just fitness and nutrition but also overall physical and mental health and appearance.’ The Company estimated ‘the global wellness market at more than $1.5 trillion, with annual growth of 5 to 10 percent.’ If pharma marketers can leverage this win-win opportunity creatively, brand related self-care measures would also come under this market.

Leveraging increased focus on patients’ self-care:

The fact that an opportunity exists for pharma players to leverage a new opportunity in the ‘self-care’ space, creating win-win treatment outcomes for all, isn’t a new concept. Over a decade, this is being deliberated in the healthcare space. This is evident from an interesting article titled, ‘Helping patients help themselves’, published in the ‘Modern Healthcare’ on June 21, 2010. Acknowledging that “Self-management is critical,” it wrote: “The patient spends one-tenth of 1% of their time in the doctor’s office and the rest of the time on their own. Coming up with good ways to engage them and encourage them to take control and make changes is very important.”

Interestingly, another article carrying exactly the same title – ‘Helping patients help themselves’ – penned by another author, was published after more than a decade – in the ‘Reuters Event’, on November 19, 2021. This author also emphasized: ‘Self-care offers a new way for health care companies to serve patients better, globally and industry collaboration will drive faster progress.’ It reiterated: ‘There’s an opportunity here for healthcare companies to put patients even more at the center of care and to help them achieve better outcomes.’ Pharma marketers, wearing their best creative hats, will find several novel strategic ways to reap a rich harvest from this opportunity. I shall, therefore, won’t step into that area in this article.

Conclusion:

Ongoing awareness campaigns, encouraging people to take primary ownership of their own health to prevent any serious medical interventions – both for infectious and non-infectious ailments, can be a force multiplier to protect a nation’s health.

Several ‘self-care’ practices during the pandemic like, wearing face masks, maintaining social distancing, hand washing and self-isolation to contain spread of infection, continues. In tandem, as many experts reported, more people are now using digital tools, wearables, symptom trackers – for self-care. Alongside, virtual medical consultation, home care and telehealth services, purchasing medical products and diagnostic services from e-pharmacies, digital health solutions and the likes are also increasing significantly, for the same reason.

Collectively, self-care initiatives have paid rich dividend – in varying degree, almost in every country, notwithstanding some catastrophic onslaught of the virus in many nations, including India. Otherwise, the numbers could have been worse, as many experts project. That said, as the McKinsey & Companysaid: ‘If the pandemic has taught us one thing, it’s that physical and mental health will remain a priority for millions of people across the globe for a long time to come.’ Being in the thick of this process, the drug industry, by and large, has also realized that ‘self-care’ is crucial to ensure better treatment outcomes. This, I reckon, opens a new vista of opportunity for pharma to leverage, with increased focus on most of these ‘self-care’ practices – for business excellence.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Enhancing Pharma Brand Experience In The New Normal

Posted on June 22, 2020 by Tapan Ray

In these days of unprecedented and all-pervasive disruptions – almost in every facet of life – caused by an unknown virus, scramble to find an effective solution for saving lives and livelihoods, still continue. The discomfiture seems to be omnipresent across the healthcare space.

On its upside, pharma witnessed an unparalleled surge in various collaborative activities both in the search for a cure and also in preventing the infection. The downside is, conclusive scientific evidences are still not available for these drugs – except one that was unraveled just on June 16, 2020. On the contrary, after granting emergency authorization on March 30,2020, for use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in Covid-19 infection, the US-FDA on its own, revoked it on June 15, 2020 for lack of conclusive evidence.

Amid initiatives of saving lives, pharma industry – besides trying to be a part of saving livelihoods – alongside others, is also gearing up to restart its demand generation activities, and move ahead, as the looming crisis continues, unabated.

From the pharma industry perspective, this new beginning, as it were, in a scenario that was never envisaged in the past, would require two most critical ingredients, amongst several others, more than ever before. It is another major transformation, where pharma leadership would require encouraging:

A change in mindset with a fresh pair of eyes to find game-changing opportunities in the new normal.

Mapping end-to-end customer journey to enhance their experience in the changing business scenario.

This article will focus on the relevance of these two areas, for the drug companies to come out with flying colors, yet again, in a difficult situation.

Evolving changes in the pharma ecosystem:

That the evolving ecosystem is changing the life sciences value chain and creating new opportunities to capture future value by providing end-to-end solutions, was also highlighted in the EY report - “Today for tomorrow: realizing the potential of Life Sciences 4.0.” This was released in February 2020, as Covid-19 started changing the world and the way businesses operate.

To successfully navigate through such fast-changing healthcare landscape, ‘companies need to develop an exponential mindset that leverages technology for business model reinvention and empowering the workforce,’ the report emphasized.

As moving in this direction with agility is critical, drug companies will require a leadership team of a different mindset, who can ferret out path-breaking opportunities amid ‘never before’ problems. Mainly because, the strategy for success will be quite different from the traditional recent practices. Enhancing contemporary and personalized value of product and service offerings to healthcare consumers – with end-to-end solutions, won’t be everybody’s cup of tea in the shifting paradigm.

Let me explain some basic changes in the traditional sales and marketing domain to drive home this point.

Some basic changes in the traditional sales and marketing practices:

Until Covid-19 battle is decisively won by a vast majority in the planet earth, by acquiring either a vaccine-induced or herd-immunity – maintaining social distancing and strict compliance with other health norms will remain in force. Besides, a palpable fear among a large population from getting infected by the Coronavirus, is unlikely to vanish soon. From this angle, many traditional pharma demand generation activities may not be as productive as they used to be, such as:

Meeting doctors the way one used to in the past for a face to face prescription demand generation activity, will be different. Moreover, per doctor call time may increase significantly – with a commensurate increase in cost, impacting average yield per call.

All marketing events, requiring the participation of many doctors under one-roof, namely – large symposia, Continuing Medical Education (CME) or even sending doctors by air for educational group-tours or even sponsoring any other medical events, may be challenging now.

Changing mindset of doctors, triggered during a long national ‘Lockdown’ period to remain updated from different sources in the cyberspace, may continue, prompting lesser interaction with drug company representatives.

There are many other areas, which different companies may consider a great commercial value, would also need to be identified – as the pharma companies restart their prescription demand generation activities. Nonetheless, equally important is to zero-in to alternative strategic approaches, soon.

Zeroing-in to alternative strategic approaches with a new mindset is critical:

There could be several strategic approaches for this area. One such is, mapping the end-to-end customer journey in the changing situation, to enhance their brand experience during this process. As the time is very limited now, being ‘right the first time’, will be crucial for pharma marketers. Otherwise, competition will prevail.

Any game-changing approach at this time, will call for a fresh pair of eyes, having a contemporary mindset. ‘I did it this way before’ approach will not work, as the situation is unprecedented, and there are no footsteps to follow. Thus, I reckon, the organization will require taking the following measures based on a predictive mindset and actionable insight:

Selecting a right leadership team who can accurately define the changes in each touch-points of a disease treatment process.

Creating a ground swell of the need for the proposed changes – explaining the benefits of each.

Prompt mitigation of any resistance that may surface during this process.

Identifying the loose knots in the process of strategy implantation.

Choosing the implementation team with right competence, mindset and agility in achieving the set goals, across the business domains.

Providing continuous training, problem-solving support – ensuring an all-time learning mindset for all in the selected team.

Initiating an emotional omnichannel engagement to take all stakeholders on board – with aligned messages – for desired outcome.

Assigning accountability to each one, for achieving agreed results.

The biggest hurdle in the business transformation process:

In tandem, another key point also to be borne in mind. Because, with each passing day, some new finding in Covid-19 disease area – some good news for drug and a vaccine development, or could even be another crisis, may keep unfolding. The team should always remain on course, despite limited resources and other business challenges.

Many will know, the biggest hurdle for any transformation process is culture. Open minds of all concerned will make the process easier. With traditional business practices, it will be complex to navigate through the current situation. Therefore, a change in people’s mindset in the new situation, is a fundamental requirement to restart the pharma industry – in full steam.

The core objective needs to be understood by all:

The core objective during the entire process of such transformation, is to enhance a patient-centric brand experience – throughout its customers’ journey, seeking an end-to-end disease treatment solution. The process would, in turn, require a deep understanding of the emotions, requirements and related preferences of the customers. This is critical to establish a meaningful human connection, virtual or otherwise, with them.

Nevertheless, it will entail data-based and detail mapping the customers’ journey, while seeking an effective treatment solution for the disease that one is suffering from. Accordingly, creating a patient-centric content to build a brand persona, alongside crafty dissemination of the same for the target groups, through omnichannel platforms, will need to be diligently worked out. More important is its execution with military precision, by emotionally connecting the intended stakeholders to deliver a unique brand experience.

Conclusion:

Like many other countries, ‘unlock down’ process related to Covid-19 pandemic has already started in India, with varying degree at different places, though, depending on the nature of intensity and spread of the infection. However, the number of Coronavirus infected cases continues to maintain a steep ascending trend. As on June 21, 2020 morning, the recorded Coronavirus cases in the country reached 411,727 with 13,277 deaths.

The unlocking process of critical pharma industry activities has also started rolling. However, the new beginning has to be in sync with the fast-evolving changes in the pharma ecosystem. Many processes and deliverables, including formulation and implementation of an effective strategy for the same, will no longer be a replica of the traditional ones, as it were.

Similarly, to find game-changing opportunities in the pharma sales and marketing space, the marketers will need a change in their current mindset and having a fresh pair of eyes. This will be essential for an unbiased and effective mapping of end-to-end customer journey to enhance their unique brand experience. In tandem, it will help create key brand differentiators with cutting edges, for business excellence in the new normal.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Opioid Crisis: A Looming Threat To India?

Posted on September 16, 2019 by Tapan Ray

A serious, but a typical health crisis that has shaken America, is now, apparently, in search of its prey in India – a soft target to ignite a raging fire of misuse or abuse of prescription drugs of addictive in nature. That India could probably be the next victim of this menace, is now being widely discussed and reported in the international media, though not so much in India, itself.

The January 2019 communique of the National Institute of Drug Abuse spotlights: ‘Every day more than 130 people in the United States die after overdosing on opioids.’ Whereas, in 2017, more than 47,000 Americans, among 1.7 million suffering people, died as a result of an Opioid overdose. Snowballing effect of Opioids addiction commenced over a couple of decades ago and includes – both prescription pain relievers and synthetic Opioids, such as fentanyl, among others.

The health menace of this humongous dimension is not only jeopardizing public health, but also impacting the social and economic welfare, work productivity, besides drug addiction related criminal behavior of an increasing number of addicts.

In this article, exploring the factors – that not just ignited, but fueled this fire, I shall try to explain why India could be a fertile ground for another opioid epidemic. The key intent is to thwart this menace without further delay, learning from the ‘Opioid crisis’ in the United States. Moving towards that direction, I begin with a brief description of the genesis of this crisis, primarily to ensure that all my readers are on the same page to feel the gravity of the situation.

The genesis of Opioid crisis:

The terms – ‘Opioid epidemic’ or ‘Opioid crisis’are generally referred to rapid increase in consumption of prescription and nonprescription Opioid drugs in America that began in the late 1990s. It is noteworthy, until the mid-1980s and early 1990s, physicians seldom prescribed opiates because of the fear of addicting patients. This was established in several studies, such as, the July-August 2016 Article, titled ‘Drug Company Compensated Physicians Role in Causing America’s Deadly Opioid Epidemic: When Will We Learn?’

In the ninety’s, as the above paper indicates, some “medical experts and thought leaders led by the neurologist and pain specialist Russell Portenoy, MD, proclaimed that the risks of addiction to Opioids were minimal and that not treating pain was cruel and even amounted to medical negligence.” Incidentally, Russell Portenoy was at that time known as the “King of Pain” and was the Chairman of Pain Medicine and Palliative Care at Beth Israel Hospital in New York.

The paper also articulated, “Portenoy and his acolytes wrote articles and gave lectures to physicians about the safety of narcotics. They repeatedly cited a study by Porter and Jick in ‘The New England Journal of Medicine’ that stated that only one percent of patients treated with narcotics became addicted.” It is a different matter, as the authors indicated, the above trial was ‘not a controlled study at all. It consisted of a short 101-word one paragraph letter to the editor.’

Understandably, the rapid spread of Opioid use in America commenced on the following years. As The author highlighted: “To this day in most American hospitals, nurses on their daily rounds, ask patients to rate their pain on a scale of one to ten and then may administer a narcotic accordingly.”

HHS corroborates the fact:

In line with the finding of the above paper, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) traces the origin of the U.S. Opioid Epidemic in the late 1990s. When, asHHS also reiterated, ‘pharmaceutical companies reassured the medical community that patients would not become addicted to opioid pain relievers.’ Presumably, the general image of the pharma industry not being as questionable as today, ‘health care providers began to prescribe them at greater rates,’ – HHS further noted.

Thereafter, all hell broke loose, as it were.With increased prescriptions of Opioid medications, the widespread misuse of both prescription and non-prescription Opioids started taking its toll. Obviously, it happened as the prescribers were not as cautious and restrictive and concerned about prescribing Opioids because of their addictive nature, as they were before 1990s. It seems unlikely that astute medical practitioners won’t be able to fathom the devastating health impact of such highly addictive medications on the users.

America had to declare the Opioid crisis as public health emergency:

In 2017 HHS declared Opioid crisis as a public health emergency, announcing a strategy to combat this epidemic. Separately, in October 2017, President Trump also declared the same as the ‘worst drug crisis in U.S. history’.One can sense this Presidential level urgency from the recent report of The Washington Post. It emphasized - ‘America’s largest drug companies saturated the country with 76 billion oxycodone and hydrocodone pain pills from 2006 through 2012, as the nation’s deadliest drug epidemic spun out of control.’

The above information comes from a database maintained by the Drug Enforcement Administration that tracks the path of every single pain pill sold in the United States – from manufacturers and distributors to pharmacies in every town and city. The data would provide an unprecedented look at the surge of legal pain pills that fueled the Opioid epidemic, resulting in nearly 100,000 deaths from 2006 through 2012, as the article highlighted.

In view of this, and also looking at the chronology of the genesis of this crisis, it is worth exploring the role of pharma companies in triggering this health hazard in America.

The role of pharma companies in the crisis:

That there is, apparently, a role of some big pharma players in the Opioid crisis was widely reported by the international media. One such article titled, ‘Big Pharma Is Starting to Pay for the Opioid Crisis. Make Those Payments Count,’ was publishesby The New York Times, on August 28, 2019.

It said: ‘As innumerable court documents and investigations have shown, Opioid makers, including Purdue and Johnson & Johnson, routinely and knowingly misled the public about their products. They played down the risks of addiction, insisting that their drugs were safe and, if anything, underutilized. And they combated growing concerns with aggressive lobbying and public relations campaigns.’

The September 01, 2019 article titled – ‘America’s Opioid catastrophe has lessons for us all, about greed and racial division’, published in The Guardian went a step forward. Explaining the reason for the situation to attain a ‘crisis’ stage, it said, ‘big pharma saw huge profits in medicalizing the social stress of the white working class.’ Thus, the question that comes up, is there any strong and credible evidence to associate Opioid crisis with pharma marketing?

Association of Opioid crisis with pharma marketing:

Several reports point towards a possible pharma-doctor nexus for the Opioid crisis. One such evidence is provided by the same July-August 2016 Article, as quoted above. The paper said:‘Recently and belatedly, Portenoy has backtracked and admitted he was wrong about the addictive properties of Opioids.’ He was quoted in the article saying: “I gave innumerable lectures in the late 1980s and ‘90s about addiction that weren’t true.”

Another original investigation report in this regard, titled ‘‘Association of Pharmaceutical Industry Marketing of Opioid Products With Mortality From Opioid-Related Overdoses’, was published in JAMAon January 18, 2019. The paper concluded:‘In this study, across US counties, marketing of Opioid products to physicians was associated with increased Opioid prescribing and, subsequently, with elevated mortality from overdoses. Amid a national Opioid overdose crisis, reexamining the influence of the pharmaceutical industry may be warranted.’

The article also indicated: ‘Recent data suggest that when physicians receive Opioid marketing, they subsequently prescribe more Opioids.’ The researchers pointed out:‘Amid a worsening Opioid crisis, our results suggest that industry marketing to physicians may run counter to current efforts to curb excessive Opioid prescribing.’

Again, the same September 01, 2019 article, published in The Guardian, also stresses– ‘The relationship between big pharma and US doctors can only be described as corrupt.’ Quoting the official figures, it highlighted: ‘The total paid to doctors and hospitals by drug companies was more than $9bn. Unsurprisingly, the greater the payments, the more willing doctors were to prescribe Opioids.’

The India’s tryst with Opioid drugs:

As many would know, India has remained for a long time one of the largest Opioid medicine producers in the world. However, most of the country’s population had a restricted access to Opioid pain relief drugs.

This was because, the International Narcotics Control Board, established in 1968, and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act of 1985 ‘codified the bureaucratic thicket for any doctor who wanted to prescribe opioid painkillers. Physicians feared fines, jail sentences and losing their medical license if they skirted regulations.’

The amendment came in 2014:

According to reports, the need for pain relief being “an important obligation of the government,” the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, was amended in 2014, creating a class of medicines called the “essential narcotic drugs.” The list of which includes, morphine, fentanyl, methadone, oxycodone, codeine and hydrocodone. Alongside, the conditions for bail in drug offenses will be relaxed and the mandatory death penalty for those previously convicted of certain offenses will be revoked.This is expected to create a better balance between narcotic drug control and the availability of Opioid drugs, for beneficial use of patients.

The flip side – a looming threat?

So far so good. Nevertheless, another article – ‘How big pharma is targeting India’s booming Opioid market,’ appeared in The Guardian on August 27, 2019, shows the flip side of this development. It says, as India loosens its stringent narcotics laws, ‘American pharmaceutical companies – architects of the Opioid crisis in the United States and avid hunters of new markets – stand at the ready to fuel that demand.’

Many are truly concerned about it, especially in a country like India, where any medicine can be procured over the counter, hoodwinking robust drug laws. Thus, as the above article adds, ‘a looming deluge of addictive painkillers terrifies some Indian medical professionals, who are keenly aware that despite government regulations most drugs are available for petty cash at local chemist shops.’

Providers of pain management are increasing, so also self-medication:

Today, ‘pain management’ as a specialty treatment, can be seen in many hospitals of the country. In tandem – apparently, ‘at the insistence of the professional societies that accredit hospitals in India, nurses and doctors are now encouraged to assess pain as a “fifth vital sign“, along with pulse, temperature, breathing and blood pressure.’ Besides, as The Guardian article of August 27, 2019 also noted, ‘General practitioners have started prescribing these drugs.’

Yet another important point to note, according to studies, one of the most common reasons for self-medication is for pain – 18.34 percent, where self-medication is done with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in 49.4 percent of cases. Keeping pace with this trend, most generic pharma companies are having pain management product in their brand portfolio, unlike a couple of decades ago.

Early signs of drug companies’ special marketing activities:

There are many examples. But I shall quote The Guardian article again to drive home this point. The paper talks about hints of ‘American pharma’s fingerprints’ in a glass cabinet in the waiting room of a famous clinic in Delhi. Some of these include ‘awards from Johnson & Johnson honoring the doctor for symposia on pain management; a plaque for “his valuable contribution as a speaker” about tapentadol, an Opioid marketed by Johnson & Johnson in 2009. The dispensing counter does a brisk business in Ultracet, branded tramadol tablets made by a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary.’

Alongside, another interesting point is peeps in – the drugs, which are now commonly prescribed for chronic pain were first approved for use by cancer patients. ‘One of the first formulations of fentanyl, for example, was a lollipop because chemotherapy left cancer patients too nauseated to eat. In India, pain physicians now prescribe fentanyl patches to patients with chronic muscular pain.’

Every year, more of such drugs are coming to market. Many chemists, hospitals and medical shops are also acquiring requisite licenses for keeping these drugs. Curiously, Opioids are available in not just oral, but injectable, patches and syrups – the article noted.

Conclusion:

There are many striking similarities between the developments that preceded the American Opioid crisis and the emerging scenario of the same in India. One such is, its onset in America was in the late 1990s, with the regulatory relaxation in introducing Opioid drugs. However, the first announcement of the full-blown crisis on the same, took a couple of decades to come.

In India, the regulatory relaxation for some Opioid drugs came in 2014, and now its 2019. Thus, it’s possibly too early to even track, in which direction it is moving. However, given the prevailing overall healthcare scenario in India, the concern remains palpable. The decision makers, hopefully, would consider putting in place effective checks and balances, taking a leaf from the American Opioid epidemic. The measures should include, among others, effective implementation of legal and regulatory provisions; making health care delivery systems robust and transparent; protecting vulnerable patients from rampant and irresponsible self-medication, besides promptly addressing general concerns with pharma marketing practices.

The whole process should be aimed at benefitting the deserving patients, suffering from excruciating pain, while minimizing Opioid drug misuse or abuse. There should not be any repetition of human sufferings on this score, like what people are now witnessing in America. Effective action from all concerned – right from now, will decide whether or not Opioid crisis is a looming threat that India can successfully neutralize.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Are Cancer Patients Victims of Pharma’s Payment to Doctors – For Prescriptions?

Posted on March 4, 2019 by Tapan Ray

In pharma industry, people of all socioeconomic backgrounds have no other choice but to visit doctors, to seek their expert advice for medical treatment. Patients expect them to prescribe the right and most affordable medicines for desired relief. Ironically, it appears to be the general industry practice to favorably influence the prescribing decision of doctors of all kinds of drugs, irrespective of any tangible product superiority, and price. This practice has been a decade old general concern of many that still continues unabated, especially in India.

There is nothing wrong, though, in pharma companies’ influencing doctors with unique product and associated service offerings over others, intended to benefit patients. However, when any marketing activity goes against the general patient interest, or may be construed independently as short-changing patients, must not be condoned, the least by any government.

This article will discuss how this menace is not sparing even those cancer patients who can’t afford expensive drugs but want to survive. I shall start with an overall perspective and sign off with the prevailing situation in India.

Are such practices transparent?

Obviously not, as these take place under several benign names and guise, and is an open secret to almost all stakeholders, including many patients. In several countries, India excluded, the government or the legal systems have intervened to make the drug marketing process more transparent, often with strong punitive measures. Curiously, adequate space is constantly being created by some players to hoodwink all these.

Today, one can, at best put two and two together to get a feel of what could possibly be the reality. It still remains a challenge to exactly quantify as to what extent it is going on, and with what impact on common patients, who mostly pay out of pocket to purchase medicines. But the good news is, studies on this particular subject has commenced, a few examples of which I shall in this article.

Some common influencing tools:

Pharma companies’ influencing tools for favorable doctors’ prescriptions are, apparently, directly proportional to a doctor’s prescription generating capacity. Once a doctor is influenced by such mechanism, high product price becomes irrelevant, even for those who find the drug difficult to afford.

The form of influence varies from gifts carrying different price tags, advertising in specific souvenirs or journals, sponsoring medical symposia of doctors’ choice, to arranging company’s own ‘Continuing Medical Education (CME)’ programs in exotic places, with travel, boarding and lodging expenses paid by the company, sometimes including their spouses. Hefty speaking, consulting fees and research grants may also be among these influencing tools. All are commonly done through a third party to avoid easy detection.

Some evidences of drug companies’ payment to doctors:

May 02, 2017 edition of the Journal of American Medical Association, published a couple of survey findings that can be summarized, as follows:

About half of U.S. doctors received payments from the pharmaceutical and medical device industries in 2015, amounting to USD 2.4 billion

Such payments and gifts very likely encourage doctors to prescribe pricey brand-name drugs and devices pushed by sales representatives.

Chances of receiving a general payment depended on the doctor’s specialty — 61 percent of surgeons got a payment, compared with 48 percent of primary care doctors.

Pharma companies earned more than USD 60 billion in 2010 for brand-name drugs included in the study. Generic drugs are 80 to 85 percent less expensive, which means hospitals can save lots of money, if doctors start prescribing generics instead of brand-name drugs.

Doctors at academic medical centers were more likely to prescribe cheaper generic drugs than expensive brand-name drugs after their hospitals adopted rules that restricted pharmaceutical sales visits, the researchers said.

“Many doctors would say they can’t be bought for the low amounts we’re talking about, but the amounts actually aren’t that low. Many, many doctors are getting thousands of dollars. It’s hard to imagine that is not influential,” the article underscored.

Quantification of increased prescription:

Another interesting study analyzed the prescription pattern of cardiologists who were taken out for a meal by sales representatives of Pfizer or AstraZeneca– makers of two expensive branded cholesterol-lowering statins, Lipitor and Crestor. They found that payment to physicians increases prescribing of the focal drug by 73 percent.

It is noteworthy,during the time period examined, which was between 2011 and 2012, there were several equivalent, lower-cost generic statin drugs available in the market. The paper’s findings confirm the general belief that drug companies’ business practices do influence doctors prescribing behavior while treating patients, in favor of the high-cost targeted brands.

Any relationship between soaring cancer drug price and pay for prescriptions?

Dr. Peter Bach at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering in New York City, with the help of a ‘cancer drug price chart from 1965 to 2016 period, established that treatment cost with cancer drugs is soaring. In another article, on the same issue, Dr. Bach commented: ‘Market pricing does not ensure access to new innovation.’ He reiterated:‘Profit maximizing price is not welfare maximizing. This is a policy failure, not a market failure.’

So far so good. However, everybody was surprised when on October 02, 2018, The New York Times reported about the same Memorial Sloan-Kettering that: ‘Dr. Craig B. Thompson, the hospital’s chief executive, resigned in October from the board of Merck. The company, which makes the blockbuster cancer drug Keytruda, had paid him about $300,000 in 2017 for his service.’

The same report further detailed: ‘Dr. Thompson, 65, received $300,000 in compensation from Merck in 2017, according to company financial filings. He was paid $70,000 in cash by Charles River in 2017, plus $215,050 in stock.’ This does not seem to be a solitary example from this hospital, as ‘another article detailed how a hospital vice president held a nearly $1.4 million stake in a newly public company as compensation for representing Memorial Sloan Kettering on its board.’

The question that arises now, how would such behavior of doctors adversely impact cancer patients’ health-interest? This was evaluated in an interesting article, as below.

Evaluation of association between industry payment to doctors and their prescribing practices:

Financial relationships between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry are common. This was analyzed in detail with deft and expertise in yet another very recent research paper titled, ‘Evaluating the Strength of the Association Between Industry Payments and Prescribing Practices in Oncology,’ published in the ‘The Oncologist’ on February 06, 2019. Two critical findings of the study may interest many, which are:

The association between industry payments and cancer drug prescribing was greatest among physicians who received payments consistently (within each calendar year).

Receipt of payments for compensation purposes, such as for consulting or travel, and higher dollar value of payments were also associated with increased prescribing.

Its implication on cancer patients:

To ascertain its implication on cancer patients by combining records of industry gifts with prescribing records, the study identified:

The consistency of payments over time, the dollar value of payments, and payments for compensation as factors.

This is very likely to strengthen the association between receiving payments and increased prescribing of that company’s cancer drug.

The outrageous cost of cancer treatment with innovative drugs:

As I said in my previous articles, new cancer drugs are increasingly becoming more innovative with greater efficacy. The fact that the 2018 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was awarded to James P. Allison and Tasuku Honjo “for their discovery of cancer therapy by inhibition of negative immune regulation,” provides a testimony to the high quality of innovation involved in the discovery and development of cancer therapy.

This progress is excellent, unquestionably! But who is getting benefitted by these innovative cancer medicines? The headline of the article, titled ‘The Nobel Prize is a reminder of the outrageous cost of curing cancer,’ published by the Vox Media Vox Media on October 02, 2018, captures the prevailing reality, succinctly. Articulating, ‘The Nobel Prize is a reminder of the outrageous cost of curing cancer,’ the author further elaborates the point. The paper underscores, for the first time ever, we’re living in a moment when many of our most promising medical advances, such as cancer immunotherapy, are far out of reach for the vast majority of people who could benefit from them.

Innovative cancer drugs are pricey only for the high cost of innovation?

Let me deliberate this point based on data. Quite expectedly, pharma industry never accepts that prescriptions are bought. But, when get caught, they retort that these are some aberrations, keeping their much-publicized argument unchanged in support of jaw dropping cancer drug prices. They argue, innovative drugs are brought to market after incurring R&D expenditure of over a billion dollars, if not more.

The Vox article quotes the CEO of Novartis, the maker of the immunotherapy drug Kymriah, saying that the R&D costs of the drug were about USD 1 billion. But many experts don’t buy this argument. The article echoed one such expert - Ezekiel Emanuel, a professor of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine.

The professor countered by saying: ‘That’s certainly a big investment, but it is much less astounding when compared with the drug’s anticipated revenue. Based on Kymriah’s list price, treating just 2,700 patients would allow Novartis to recoup its entire investment. Even with significant discounts for many patients, it wouldn’t take many treatments to turn a considerable profit.’

According to researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, the total cost for removing, reprogramming and infusing the cells into each patient is less than USD 60,000—just one-sixth of the USD 373,000 price tag. Production costs do not seem to be driving the stratospheric drug prices, the researchers commented.

Has any remedial action been taken by the industry or the doctors?

Except one report, I reckon, this practice continues virtually unabated, even today.

‘The above conflicts at Memorial Sloan Kettering, unearthed by The New York Times and ProPublica, have had a rippling effect on other leading cancer institutions across the country’, commented ProPublica on January 11, 2019. It reported: ‘The cancer center will now bar top officials from sitting on outside boards of for-profit companies and is conducting a wide-scale review of other policies.’

Further, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, both of whose executives sit on corporate boards, are among the institutions reconsidering their policies on financial ties, the article said.

Conclusion:

Although, in many countries, at least, some action has been taken by the governments to curb such practices by framing appropriate laws, in India it is virtually free for all types of situation, as prevailing in this area.

A recent news report aptly summarized the Indian situation. It highlighted: “While Prime Minister Narendra Modi recently mocked doctors in a public interaction in London for going on foreign trips sponsored by pharma companies, his government has been unsuccessful in bringing in a law to punish pharma companies that bribe doctors. The Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP), prepared by the pharmaceuticals department (DoP) to control unethical marketing practices in pharma has been in the work since December 2014, six months after the current government came to power. More than three years later, the code is stuck in the Niti Aayog after the law ministry rejected DoP’s draft.”

With the above global and local perspective, I reckon, even if some changes take place in the developed world, India is unlikely to fall in that category, any time soon. Consequently, a large number of Indian patients may continue to fall victims of common pharma practice – pay to doctors for prescriptions. It doesn’t seem to matter even for cancer drugs.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Uniting Pharma With Business Ethics: A Bridge Too Far?

Posted on February 18, 2019 by Tapan Ray

Operating ethically not only is the right thing to do but also is fundamental to success in business. Poor governance and poor ethical business practices can lead to fines, public scrutiny and distrust – overshadowing good performance, destroying reputation, and undermining the morale and engagement of employees. …We must act in ways that build and maintain the trust of patients, healthcare professionals, governments and society. This was articulated in the Novartis Corporate Responsibility Report 2017, highlighting how important it is to unite pharma operations with business ethics for each company. But is it happening in reality?

The same question haunts yet again with the announcement of a new Code of Marketing Practice by the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations’ (IFPMA),effective January 2019. The pronouncement prescribes ‘a global ban on gifts and promotional aids for prescription drugs wherever the association’s member companies operate.’

However, the overall scenario gets more complex to comprehend, when on January 03, 2019 Bloomberg Law reported: ‘The change is causing concern among both U.S.-based and multinational companies like Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squib, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer Inc. about how to balance appropriate business behavior with respect for cultural norms in other countries.’ Interestingly, the IFPMA membership virtually covers all MNC drug companies, operating across the world. Thus, any concern on its implementation, especiallyamong some of the bigger names, raises more questions than answers about its effectiveness. What exactly has been the outcome of all such actions being taken, especially by the multinational pharma industry associations, from time to time. Have the patients been benefited – at all?

Keeping this recent development as the backdrop, I shall try to gauge in this article, is the bridge still too far to mitigate the widening gap between overall pharma operations and the standard of business ethics -voluntary code of practices of pharma associations notwithstanding?

Why pharma ‘business-practices’ and ‘business-ethics’ are so important?

Before charting onto the sensitive areas of ‘business practices’ and ‘business ethics’, let me recapitulate the meaning of these two terminologies to fathom why these are so important in pharma to protect patient health interest.

Business practice is defined as a method, procedure, process, or rule employed or followed by a company in pursuit of achieving its objectives. Itmay also refer to these collectively.
Similarly, Business ethics is defined as a form of professional ethics that examines the ethical and moral principles and problems that arise in a business environment. It applies to all aspects of business conduct on behalf of both individuals and the entire company.

Thus, ethical business policies and practices for pharma industry, when worked out both by an industry association or an individual company, aims at addressing potentially controversial issues, such as corporate governance, insider trading, bribery, discrimination, corporate responsibility and fiduciary responsibilities.

Ironically, despite well-hyped announcements of voluntary codes of practices from time to time, no commensurate changes in patients’ health interest are visible in real life. Thus, the very relevance of such edicts is now being seriously questioned by many.

What do reports reflect on ongoing pharma business practices?

To get an idea in this area, let me quote below from three reports, out of which one is specifically on the Indian scenario, which has not changed much even today:

“The interaction between physicians and medical representatives (MRs) through gift offering is a common cause for conflicts of interest for physicians that negatively influence pre- scribing behaviors of physicians throughout the world.” This was articulated in an article titled, “Gift Acceptance and Its Effect on Prescribing Behavior among Iraqi Specialist Physicians”, published by Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP) in June 2014.

A couple of years before that, on September 07, 2012, Reuters also published an article with the headline: “In India, gift-giving drives drug makers’ marketing.” Thereafter, many similar articles were published in various newspapers and magazines, possibly to trigger remedial action by the regulators in the country.

Very recently, on January 18, 2019, The New York Times (NYT) came out with a mind boggling headline – “Study Links Drug Maker Gifts for Doctors to More Overdose Deaths.” Elaborating on this JAMA study, the NYT wrote: “Counties where the doctors got more meals, trips and consulting fees from opioid makers had higher overdose deaths involving prescription opioids.”

The point I want to drive home here is that freebies in the form of gifts, travel to exotic places with free meals and stay, fees of various types clubbed under a mysterious nomenclature ‘consulting fees’, purported to influence doctor’s prescribing behavior, are now rampant. These are adversely impacting patients, as they are often compelled to buy high-priced drugs, unnecessary drugs, including antibiotics, sedatives and opioids, to name a few.

Are big pharma companies following the codes – both in letter and spirit?

The doubt that surfaces, are these changes just for displaying to the stakeholders how well and with stringent measures, drug companies are self-regulating themselves, on an ongoing basis? Before jumping to any conclusion, let us try to make out whether, at least the big pharma players are following these codes in both letter and spirit.

To establish the point, instead of providing a long list of large pharma settlements with governments for various malpractices, I shall cite just the following two relatively recent ‘novel’ examples related two top global pharma companies, for you to have your own inferences.

The first one is related to reports that flashed across the world in May 2018 related to Novartis. One such article described, “Congress demands info from Novartis about its USD 1.2m in outflows to Michael Cohen, just as it was negotiating payments for its cancer drug.” The report further elaborated, Novartis’ USD 1.2 million payment was made in the shell company of Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer and so-called ‘fixer’.

The second one is the September 13, 2018 report of The New York Times. It revealed: ‘Dr. José Baselga, the chief medical officer of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, resigned on Thursday amid reports that he had failed to disclose millions of dollars in payments from health care companies in dozens of research articles.”

The report also stated: “Dr. Baselga, a prominent figure in the world of cancer research, omitted his financial ties to companies like the Swiss drugmaker Roche and several small biotech startups in prestigious medical publications like The New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet. He also failed to disclose any company affiliations in articles he published in the journal Cancer Discovery, for which he serves as one of two editors in chief.”

Indian companies aren’t trailing far behind, either:

Many Indian companies are, apparently, sailing on the same boat. Let me illustrate this point by citing an example related to India’s top ranked domestic pharma player.

What it said: Way back on November 13, 2010, Sun Pharmain a communication expressed its concern by saying: ‘Over four decades since Independence, the government nurtured a largely self-sufficient pharma industry. But the entry of MNCs is putting most drugs beyond the reach of millions.’

The communique further added: ‘Even as the domestic industry begins to feel the heat of an unprotected market, public health experts are examining why drug prices in India are higher than in Sri Lanka, which imports most of its drugs. The MNC takeover raises the specter of an MNC-dominated pharma sector selling drugs at un-affordable prices, a throw ‘back to the scenario just after Independence, which the government painstakingly changed over four decades. Are we setting the clock back on the country’s health security?’

The reality thereafter: It’s a different story that today, the same Sun Pharma, despite alleged ‘high price drugs of MNCs’, occupies the top ranking in the Indian pharmaceutical market. Be that as it may, the point to note that the same company is now facing similar charges from other countries, almost a decade after. On March 2017, a media report came with a headline: ‘Sun Pharma, Mylan face price fixing probe in US.’

Incidentally,the company is mired with allegation on governance related issues, as well. A media report dated November 20, 2018 carried a headline: ‘Governance cloud over Sun Pharma, stock at 6-month low.’ This example is quite relevant to this discussion, as well, for its link with ethical business practices, as discussed earlier.

Additionally, class-action lawsuits in the United States for alleged business malpractices, including ‘pay for delay conspiracies’, against Indian pharma companies are also on the rise – Sun Pharma and Dr. Reddy’s top the list in terms of those who face most class-action litigation, reported a leading Indian business daily on September 02, 2017.

Pharma malpractices continue, DOP is still to make UCPMP mandatory:

In this quagmire, where self-regulation doesn’t work, the government usually steps in, as happened in the United States and Europe. Whereas, in India, no decisive government action is yet visible to curb this menace, especially for protection of patients’ health interest. Let me try to illustrate this point with the following chronology of four key events:

On May 08, 2012, the Parliamentary Standing in its 58th Report, strongly indicted the DoP for not taking any tangible action in this regard to contain ‘huge promotional costs and the resultant add-on impact on medicine prices’.

Ultimately, effective January 01, 2015, the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DOP) put in place the Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) for voluntary implementation, despite knowing it has not worked anywhere in that format.

When voluntary UCPMP did not work, on September 20, 2016, the then secretary of the DoP reportedly said, the mandatory “UCPMP is in the last leg of clearance with the government. The draft guidance has incorporated suggestions of the pharma industry and other stakeholders.”

After another year passed by, on April 16, 2018, a news report reconfirmed: ‘4 years on, code to punish pharma firms for bribing doctors still in works.’ Its status remains unchanged till date.

Conclusion:

Even after Prime Minister Modi’s comment on April 2018 regarding the alleged nexus between doctors and pharmaceutical firms and doctors attending conferences abroad to promote these companies, decision paralysis of DOP continues on this important issue.

Pharma companies continue practicing what they deem necessary to further their business interest, alongside, of course, announcing their new and newer voluntary codes of practices. But, patients keep suffering, apparently for the apathy of the DOP to curb such malpractices forthwith.

Coming back to where I started from, when the malice is so deeply rooted, would any global ban ‘brand-reminders’, such as gifts, even if implemented religiously, work? Thus, the doubt lingers, for uniting pharma operations with corporate business ethics is the bridge still too far?

By: Tapan J. Ray

With ‘Cutting Corners’ Going North, Pharma Reputation Dives South

Posted on January 15, 2018 by Tapan Ray

Just a few months ago, on October 24, 2017, ‘New Jersey Law Journal’ came out with an eye-catching headline – “Sanofi Set to Pay $ 61M Settlement in Antitrust Suit Over Vaccine Bundling.” The suit says: “Sanofi-Pasteur allegedly suppressed competition for its pediatric meningococcal vaccine, Menactra, by charging physicians and hospitals up to 35 percent more for its product, unless they agreed to buy Sanofi’s pediatric vaccines exclusively. Sanofi-Pasteur is the vaccines division of French drug manufacturer Sanofi.”

Nevertheless, a statement from the company said: “Despite Sanofi’s strong defenses, Sanofi recognizes that continued litigation is likely to be extraordinarily expensive and time-consuming and thus has agreed to enter into this Settlement Agreement to avoid the further expense, inconvenience, risk and distraction of burdensome and protracted litigation. Sanofi is finally putting to rest this case by obtaining complete dismissal of the action and a release by settlement class members of all released claims.”

When such incidences – of various scales and dimensions, continue being reported by both the global and local media, over a long period of time, one can fathom the potential of their cumulative impact on public and other stakeholders. Severely dented image and reputation of pharma, in general, before the eyes of so many, across the world, is a testimony to this phenomenon. Considering these as ‘cutting corners’ syndromes, I shall discuss in this article, how fast is pharma reputation diving South, with incidences of ‘cutting corners’ keep going North.

‘Cutting Corners’:

The Oxford dictionary defines ‘cutting corners’ as: ‘Doing something perfunctorily so as to save time or money’. Putting it in the context, I reckon, legally or ethically questionable actions with a deliberate intent of making quick profits, if not profiteering, can be termed as ‘cutting corners’ or business malpractices.

‘Cutting Corners’ going North:

This is no way a recent phenomenon. Gradually increasing number of new reports on pharma’s alleged malpractices are not uncommon, either. On the contrary, these keep coming rather too frequently – baffling many industry watchers and its well-wishers, for different reasons.

The details of 20 largest settlements in this area reached between the United States Department of Justice and various pharmaceutical companies from 1991 to 2012, as available from Wikipedia, provide a glimpse to its magnitude and dimension. The settlement amount reportedly includes both the civil (False Claims Act) settlement and criminal fine. Glaxo’s US$ 3 billion settlement is apparently one of the largest civil, False Claims Act settlement on the record, and Pfizer’s US$ 2.3 billion settlement includes a record-breaking US$ 1.3 billion criminal fine. A federal court also recognized all off-label promotion as a violation of the False Claims Act, leading to a US$ 430 million settlement during that period, as this report highlights.

In one of my articles, titled ‘Big Pharma Receives Another Body Blow: Would Indian Slumber End Now?’, published in this blog on May 19, 2014, I quoted a few more examples from 2013 and 2014, as well. A few of these are as follows:

In March 2014, the antitrust regulator of Italy reportedly fined two Swiss drug majors, Novartis and Roche 182.5 million euros (U$ 251 million) for allegedly blocking distribution of Roche’s Avastin cancer drug in favor of a more expensive drug Lucentis that the two companies market jointly for an eye disorder.

Just before this, in the same month of March 2014, it was reported that a German court had fined 28 million euro (US$ 39 million) to the French pharma major Sanofi and convicted two of its former employees on bribery charges.

In May 2013, Sanofi was reportedly fined US$ 52.8 Million by the French competition regulator for trying to limit sales of generic versions of the company’s Plavix.

Pharma reputation dives South:

That pharma reputation is diving south, is well captured in the ‘Business and Industry Sector Ratings’ by Gallup, dated August 2-7, 2017. According to this public rating, the top 5 and bottom 5 industries came up as follows:

Top 5:

Industry	Total Positive %	Neutral %	Total Negative %	*Net positive or negative %
Computer	75	15	8	+67
Restaurant	72	21	7	+65
Farming and agriculture	70	17	12	+58
Grocery	60	23	17	+43
Internet	59	21	18	+41

The bottom 5, including the federal government:

Industry	Total Positive %	Neutral %	Total Negative %	*Net positive or negative %
Airline	41	20	35	+6
Oil and gas	38	21	40	-2
Healthcare	38	18	45	-7
Pharmaceutical	33	16	50	-17
Federal Govt.	29	19	52	-23

*Net Positive is % Positive minus % negative (in percentage points)

Image rejuvenation campaign not yielding results:

Arguably, the richest and the most powerful pharma industry lobby group in the largest pharmaceutical market of the world, is incurring a mind-boggling sum of expenditure to mend the severely dented collective reputation and image of its members.

Vindicating this point, a January 18, 2017 media report articulated that a major pharma industry lobby group – PhRMA, is gearing up for a new image building campaign by spending in the “tens of millions” each year to drum up support for the reputationally challenged pharma industry. Such initiatives by PhRMA, as I understand, are not totally new, but rather ongoing. Be that as it may, as the Gallup survey confirms, pharma reputation keeps diving South, unabated.

Mending pharma’s reputation surfaces as one of the top concerns of the pharma industry. It, therefore, demands commensurate priority in working out a meaningful strategic plan, and its effective implementation on the ground, collectively. More so, when the POTUS – Donald Trump, has also emerged as a vocal pharma critic. He has already proclaimed that drug companies “are getting away with murder,” – as the above media report highlights.

Where is this campaign going off the mark?

On this subject, an article of September 5, 2017, published by Ars Technica – a technology news publication aptly epitomized, what is happening today with these campaigns, against what should have happened, instead. The column carries a headline ‘Big Pharma hopes research spending – not reasonable pricing – will improve image’.

The columnist wrote: “To scrub down their filthy reputations, drug makers could try lowering prices, a public mea culpa, or pledging to make pricing and marketing more responsible and transparent. But they seem to have taken a different strategy.” On this score, a relevant example, out of several others, was of Biogen introducing a drug in 2016, for a rare spine disorder and priced it at an eye-popping US$ 750,000 for the first years’ worth of treatment.

In pharma image revamp campaign, the focus on R&D spending or drug innovation, including blatant self-serving demands, such as strictest product patent and data exclusivity provisions, is rather overwhelming. It is understandable that all this fits in well with various pharma lobby group’s mission and mandate, but is unlikely to deliver what consumers would consider good behavior on the part of drug companies.

Is Indian pharma out of this loop?

The answer to this question is an emphatic – ‘No’. Alleged ‘dubious product quality’ related ongoing saga, is known today by all concerned. This had often culminated into US-FDA import bans of many drugs, manufactured by several Indian drug manufacturers – starting from the very top. Nonetheless, that’s not ‘the all’ or ‘end all’ in the ballgame of ‘cutting corners’ in India, as I explained above.

On September 26, 2017, a media report flashed: ‘The Income Tax (IT) investigation wing claims to have unearthed a nexus between a leading pharmaceutical company and doctors, and the evidence showing payments running into Crores to the latter for prescribing the company’s medicines.’

Close on the heels of ‘compromised drug quality standard’, such malpractices come as a double whammy for patients. But, the saga continues. In my article, titled ‘Healthcare in India And Hierarchy of Needs’, published in this blog on November 06, 2017, I mentioned about the October 31, 2017 public notice of the State Attorney General (AG) of Connecticut. The notice cited several instances of alleged drug price fixing in the United States. Interestingly, this lawsuit includes name of several large Indian companies, such as Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Emcure, Glenmark, Sun Pharma, and Zydus Pharma. The expanded complaint also names two individual defendants, one among them is the promoter, the chief executive officer and managing director of a large Indian pharma manufacturer.

Further, as I wrote before, the Maharashtra government’s recent announcement on enactment of a new law called the “Cut practices in Medical Services Act, 2017”, casts a darker shadow, not just on the doctors’ reputation, but also over the health care industry, in general, including pharma.

Today’s patients are more informed:

In today’s world, wider access to the Internet for a large number of global population has a profound implication in every sphere of life. News, discussions, opinions, comments and a plethora of other information on various industries, including pharma, are available from different credible websites, just as anything else.

Additionally, the social media, collectively, have made exchanges and interpretations of such information within various groups and communities, as fast as these could be. Just as many other different things, wrongdoings or malpractices, if any, of various industries, also get quickly captured and shared by the Netizen with ease and élan. These include incidences of ‘cutting corners’ by constituents of the pharma industry too.

Conclusion:

The Public Relationship campaigns of pharma lobby groups, with a hope to bridging the industry’s ‘trust deficit’, have been reported from the United States and other countries. However, any such campaign for the pharma industry in India hasn’t arrested my attention, as yet.

It’s beyond any reasonable doubt or debate that the pharma industry, in general, has saved and is still instrumental in saving more lives, in every nook and corner of the world. Ironically, the same industry, for its own deeds prompted mostly by the self-serving needs, has been suffering a massive collateral damage.

The industry’s long unblemished image and reputation have been severely tarnished, requiring rejuvenation with an inclusive approach. This may call for a mindset, at least, nearer to the same of George W. Merck – the legendary President and Chairman Merck & Co., Inc. He articulated a vision – “Medicine Is For The Patient, Not For The Profits”, and practiced it religiously. In today’s context, this may sound rather utopian in letters, but surely not in its spirit… be that as it may….

Pharma lobby groups hope to reverse the current trend by focusing only on R&D spending, drug innovation and strictest patent protection and data exclusivity ecosystem is apparently a non-starter. That ongoing multi-million-dollar pharma image revamp campaigns haven’t yet captured any tangible positive outcomes – not even in the United States, is possibly a testimony to this fact.

The status quo is expected to continue. More so, when ‘reasonable pricing’ of drugs is one of the top most demands of patients, patient groups and even many governments – and that’s exactly where the buck stops in pharma business.

In my view, pharma reputation restoration process isn’t merely a one-sided communication issue, as it appears today. A strategic blue print of this critical industry need, deserves to be drawn on a much broader canvass with a patient-serving mindset, instead of just a self-serving one. Otherwise, with incidences of ‘cutting corners’ going North, pharma reputation will keep diving South… till it finds its very bottom.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Pharma Governance Maladies and Corporate Leadership

Posted on October 2, 2017 by Tapan Ray

On September 26, 2017, two media headlines related to the Indian pharma industry, possibly made many wonder – Are these some of the key reasons prompting the Government to enforce stringent and costly regulations in this sector?

Above revelations came close on the heel of a series of alleged fraudulent, collusive and even criminal behavior of many domestic pharma players, by several overseas regulators, including the US-FDA. Besides international media, similar reports often featured in the national business dailies too. Most of these allegations are related to pharma marketing practices, and drug quality related concerns. In that sense, the core issues of following two news items are no different, and were reported as follows:

“The income tax (IT) investigation wing claims to have unearthed a nexus between a leading pharmaceutical company and doctors, and evidence showing payments running into Crores to the latter for prescribing the company’s medicines.”

Reaching out to Niti Aayog, Indian drug industry lobby groups, “mainly objected to three proposals in the draft policy floated last month: one drug one brand, curbing retailer margins, and mandatory bioavailability and bioequivalence (BA/BE) test for all drugs approved by state regulators and also future renewals.”

Out of these, the objection to mandatory BA/BE tests appears more intriguing to me – for two reasons. First, the news report doesn’t mention the participation of any global pharma company or their lobby groups in this meeting. If true, it would possibly mean, the pharma MNC players operating in India aren’t unduly worried about BA/BE requirements, which are mandatory in other countries of the world, primarily to ensure high generic drug quality standards.

The second one being, when the Indian pharma industry is so vocal on ‘poor quality’ of generic drugs sans brand names, apparently to protect branded generics, why is its lobby groups opposing mandatory BA/BE tests – so critical to address the quality issue. Opposing these tests, citing some ‘reason’, appears absurd. Resolving safety concerns on ‘Unbranded’ generics is nonnegotiable – for patients’ health and safety.

The major incident that snowballed:

It reminds me of the major US-FDA related quality issue involving Ranbaxy of India that eventually snowballed, attracting global media attention. This incident was well covered by Indian Press and Television, as well. As one such business daily reported, the much talked about whistleblower Dinesh Thakur, reportedly claimed that his boss in Ranbaxy made a detailed presentation of the alleged widespread manufacturing lapses and fudging of data in the company first to “a closed-door board of directors meeting in Thailand” in September 2004, and then to its science committee on December 21, 2004. Be that as it may, Ranbaxy subsequently pleaded guilty to several charges by the US-FDA, based on Dinesh Thakur’s testimony, and paid a hefty fine of US$ 550 million. It is worth noting, although Ranbaxy had an immaculate Board of Directors at that time, including distinguished and eminent personalities as the Independent Directors, the company used to be run by the promoters, or in other words, the key shareholders of the company. It may be coincidental that the majority of such incidences reported from India, either related to dubious pharma marketing practices or drug quality standard, may find a curious link with the promoter or the key shareholder driven domestic pharma companies.

The purpose of this article is not to assign blame to anyone, or any organization, but to have an intimate look at the governance process of most of such companies, which is systemic in nature. It may be worth pondering thereafter, whether one can learn the way forward from the credible research reports, available on this important subject.

The doctrine of ‘Maximizing Shareholder Value’:

In many corporate training sessions, especially for the senior management, including pharma industry in India, the above well-known doctrine is emphasized and reemphasized – again and again. It postulates, the ‘corporate managers should make maximizing shareholder value their goal – and that boards should ensure that they do.’

Indian pharma companies predominately being the promoter or the key shareholder driven corporations, choosing ‘maximizing shareholder value’ as the primary corporate mission, I reckon, is not too uncommon, either.

The basic premises of the theory:

The details of this theory were articulated in the 1976 Journal of Financial Economics article “Theory of the Firm,” by Michael Jensen and William Meckling. The concept was further deliberated in the article titled “The Error at the Heart of Corporate Leadership” by Joseph L. Bower and Lynn S. Paine, published in the May-June 2017 issue of Harvard Business Review, and its basic premises were summarized as follows:

Shareholders own the corporation and are “principals” with the original authority to manage the corporation’s business and affairs.
The corporation’s shareholders delegate decision-making authority to the managers and are thus “agents” of the shareholders.
As agents of the shareholders, managers are obliged to conduct the corporation’s business in accordance with shareholders’ desires.
Shareholders want the business to be conducted in a way that maximizes their own economic returns. (The assumption that shareholders are unanimous in this objective is implicit throughout the article.)

A flawed corporate governance model?

Bower and Paine in their above paper lucidly analyze a number of serious flaws in the basic premises of ‘maximizing shareholder value’ model. For example, they indicate that the ultimate responsibility and accountability for good corporate governance, or lack of it, lies squarely with the concerned senior management and the Board of Directors of the company and none else – not even with its large shareholders.

Moreover, the authors caution that this theory’s doctrine of alignment spreads moral hazard throughout a company and narrows management’s field of vision.

Putting it in the context of Indian pharma industry, I reckon, such risks increase alarmingly, when promoters take all management and Governance decisions, with the senior management, including the Board of Directors doing no more than endorsing those, knowingly or unknowingly, just as what happened in case of Ranbaxy, mentioned above.

Providing a more realistic foundation for corporate governance:

Against this backdrop, and accepting the following ground realities, there evolves a critical need to have a more realistic foundation for corporate governance and shareholder engagement, as the above HBR article deliberates:

Corporations are complex organizations whose effective functioning depend on talented leaders and managers.

Corporations can prosper over the long term only if they’re able to learn, adapt, and regularly transform themselves.

Corporations perform many functions in society – such as providing investment opportunities and generating wealth, producing goods and services, creating employment, developing technologies, paying taxes, and making several other significant contributions to the communities in which they operate.

Corporations may have differing objectives and strategies in this regard – such as, what the purpose of a corporation ought to be from a societal perspective may not be quite the same as what its promoters or key shareholders believe those to be.

Corporations must create value for multiple constituencies – such as, companies succeed only if customers want their products, employees want to work for them, suppliers want them as partners, shareholders want to buy their stock, and communities want their presence. In contrast, the ‘creating more shareholder value’ theory’s implied decision prompts that managers should always maximize value for shareholders – oversimplifies this challenge and leads eventually to systematic underinvestment in other important relationships.

Corporations must have ethical standards to guide interactions with all their constituencies, including shareholders and society at large – going beyond forbearance from fraud and collusion, is essential for earning the trust companies need to function effectively over time. ‘Creating more shareholder value’ theory’s ambivalence regarding corporate ethics can set companies up for destructive and even criminal behavior -which generates a need for the costly regulations that agency theory proponents are quick to decry.

All the above eight points, especially the last one, as many consider, are so relevant for the Indian pharma industry, probably more in the promoter-driven ones, as these constitute the bulk of it. It is equally important to understand that corporations are embedded not just in a network of financial systems, but also in a political and socioeconomic matrix, whose health is vital to their sustainability. Thus, changing from ‘‘creation of more shareholder value-centered governance’ to a ‘company-centered governance’ would be more meaningful in today’s paradigm.

The merits of ‘company-centered governance’:

As the Harvard article says, following are some of the merits of changing to a ‘company-centered governance’ from ‘creating more shareholder value-centered governance:’

More board-level attention to succession planning and leadership development
More board time devoted to strategies for the company’s continuing growth and renewal
More attention to risk analysis and political and environmental uncertainty
A strategic (rather than narrowly financial) approach to resource allocation
A stronger focus on investments in new capabilities and innovation
More-conservative use of leverage as a cushion against market volatility
Concern with corporate citizenship and ethical issues that goes beyond legal compliance

Conclusion:

Almost all domestic pharma companies in India are currently family run, mostly by the first or second-generation entrepreneurs, with well-defined and clearly established ownership pattern.

The glorious history of the family run Indian pharma business has started facing a more challenging future, especially in addressing the types of maladies, as epitomized in the above two recent media reports. With the ongoing process of ‘creating more shareholder value’ driven governance – almost totally scripted by the promoter or the key shareholders at the helm, the task ahead remains formidable. Additionally, the reports on Ranbaxy whistleblower’s narrative, prompted many to wonder the role of Independent Directors on the Board of strong promoter driven Indian pharma companies, besides others.

In this scenario, particularly to address the Governance related maladies effectively, a highly competent corporate leadership professionals should be empowered to steer the Indian pharma organizations, in general, from ‘creation of more shareholder value centric governance’ to a well-crafted ‘company centric governance’ process, in a well-calibrated manner and sooner.

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: practices

UCPMP 2024: Game Changer or False Dawn?

Leverage Increased Focus On ‘Self-Care’ For Better Patient Outcomes

Enhancing Pharma Brand Experience In The New Normal

Opioid Crisis: A Looming Threat To India?

Are Cancer Patients Victims of Pharma’s Payment to Doctors – For Prescriptions?

Uniting Pharma With Business Ethics: A Bridge Too Far?

Pharma Governance Maladies and Corporate Leadership