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

Posted on December 16, 2019 by Tapan Ray

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

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

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

Two opposing views:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pharma marketers need to be eclectic:

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

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

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

Let me deliberate briefly on each of the above two.

The importance of establishing ‘emotional connects’ with customers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When applied in the pharma perspective:

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

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

The name of the new game:

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

Developing a unique ‘Customer Value’ model:

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

On The Flip Side of Pharma Industry: A Saga of Perennial Contradictions

Posted on December 9, 2019 by Tapan Ray

Awesome contribution in the battle against multiple diseases, is obviously the primary facet of the pharma industry. However, on its flip side, one would witness a saga of numerous contradictions. Some of these exist perennially in well-protected opaque cocoons, regardless of what recent research data reveal. The consequences of which leaves a detrimental impact on the patient’s health interests, eventually turning into highly contentious issues, in the socio-political milieu of recent times.

While there are many such contradictions involving the pharma industry, this article will endeavor to understand just one inherent dispute. This is related to the impact of high R&D expenditure on drug prices. It assumes importance, especially at a time, when the world’s most influential pharma trade organization continues arguing in favor of the dictum – high new drug prices are driven by mind-boggling cost of drug innovation, as R&D spending keep shooting north. Incidentally, many others challenge this assertion backed by robust data, claiming it’s not so, actually.

Thus, the question that comes up, if high R&D cost prompts high drug prices, what happens when this major cost of new drug innovation comes down, as is, apparently, happening now. A proper resolution of this contradiction by ushering in transparency in this area, is important to safeguard a critical health interest of many patients. A recent research report, followed by several other important developments in this area, exposes this contradiction, probably more than ever before.

Some recent reports revealing the contradictions:

To drive home the point of contradictions, I shall cite a few references below, from a pool of many others. For example, one such report of September 26, 2019 unfolded: ‘The cost to bring a new drug to market has decreased to under US$ 2Billion’. This was announced by Clarivate Analytics plc while releasing the “2019 Centre for Medicines Research (CMR) International Pharmaceutical R&D Factbook.”

Interestingly, another article had sharply contradicted the above, presenting a different story altogether. Quoting the Tufts University Center for the Study of Drug Development, it highlighted that it costs US$ 2.6 billion growing at 8.5 percent annually. However, adding an estimate of post-approval R&D costs increases, the cost estimate to US$ 2870 million. Many estimated, it would take pharma companies more than 15 years of average sales to reach breakeven.

Curiously, a different research paper, titled ‘Comparison of Sales-Income and Research and Development Costs for FDA-Approved Cancer Drugs Sold by Originator Drug Companies,’ published by the JAMA Network Open on January 04, 2019 concluded quite in line with the ‘2019 CMR International Pharmaceutical R&D Factbook.’ It found, ‘Cancer drugs, through high prices, have generated incomes for the companies far in excess of research and development costs; lowering prices of cancer drugs and facilitating greater competition are essential for improving patient access, health system’s financial sustainability, and future innovation.’

Again, contradicting the above, one more article – ‘The Link Between Drug Prices and Research on the Next Generation of Cures,’ published ITIF (Information Technology & Innovation Foundation) on September 09, 2019, touted to: ‘Put simply, drug companies must make significant profits on their best-selling drugs in one generation in order to reinvest in the next generation.’

The saga of contradiction continues.

A glimpse at the current scenario:

While trying to understand the inherent contradiction in the space of cost of drug innovation by analyzing the available data, let us examine the current scenario, of course with reasons. Going by the oft-repeated justification that high R&D expenses drive the drug prices up, the converse scenario would be – a dip in the R&D expenditure should lead to a reduction in medicine prices, commensurately.

But this is unlikely to happen – drug prices won’t possibly come down due to voluntary measures of the drug manufacturers. As various recent developments indicate, it will be clear in the course of this discussion that the same justification won’t be jettisoned anytime soon.

Pharma CEOs do acknowledge that they have some role to play in helping lower drug prices. However, they continue defending prevailing high new drug prices by highlighting, their multibillion-dollar investments in R&D are responsible for advances in treatments of many serious ailments, such as cancer, hepatitis C, schizophrenia and autoimmune diseases.

This was again contradicted by another BMJ Research Study of October 23, 2019, which concludes: ‘A review of the patents associated with new drugs approved over the past decade indicates that publicly supported research had a major role in the late stage developments of at least one in four new drugs, either through direct funding of late stage research or through spin-off companies created from public sector research institutions. These findings could have implications for policy makers in determining fair prices and revenue flows for these products.’ Nevertheless, in the midst of it, signs of a shift in focus of many pharma companies in this area, is clearly discernible.

Signs of a shift in R&D focus are clearly discernible:

This gets well- reflected in the “2019 Centre for Medicines Research (CMR) International Pharmaceutical R&D Factbook.” As the report unfolds, one of the basic shifts is a change in focus on R&D targets. Until recently, the research focus of most companies was on Noncommunicable Diseases (NCD) such as, Parkinson’s disease, autoimmune diseases, strokes, most heart diseases, most cancers, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, Alzheimer’s disease, and others. Whereas, today there has been an increased focus on rare diseases.

What does it signify?

It obviously signifies, most companies are now trying to launch steeply priced niche products for rare diseases. This includes complex biologic products, gene therapy, personalized medicine and the likes. Which is why, a majority of current new drug approvals, targets smaller patient populations. For example, between 2010 and 2018, the number of addressable patients per drug approval decreased by 15 percent, as the above report revealed.

The bottom-line, therefore, is with the low hanging fruits already been plucked, many pharma players don’t seem to consider targeting innovation of reasonably priced mass market products. It has already happened with antibiotics and would now probably happen with several NCDs.

Two main drivers for this shift:

The two main drivers for this shift, resulting an increase in drug approvals, and significant reduction in cost per new molecular entity (NME), may be summarized as follows:

Increased focus on rare diseases. Of the 57 NMEs launched in 2018, 22 had an orphan drug designation, indicating that they targeted rare disease area.

Increased activity of smaller pharmaceutical companies. In 2018, as high as 74 percent of drug launches were developed by companies with an R&D spend of US$ 700 million to US$2 billion. Major pharma companies (R&D spend of greater than US$2 billion) accounted for just 26 percent of drug launches.

A good news!

The increase in new drug approvals driven by smaller pharma companies is a good news and also encouraging. This suggests, becoming a big company with deep pocket is no longer a prerequisite to bring an innovative drug to the market. On the contrary, making R&D programs more efficient is the name of the game, today.

Changing pharma investment strategies:

As is evident from the CMR International Factbook, drug manufacturers’’ investment strategies are also undergoing a makeover. In the R&D domain, external innovation, in general, is now playing a more critical role. Perhaps, more than ever before. In the first half of 2019 alone, global spend for pharma M&A and licensing activities was, reportedly, around US$140 billion. Interestingly, it outpaced projected 2019 R&D spend by more than 60 percent.

Do high R&D cost impact drug prices and vice versa?

This brings us to the key question: Does the high cost of R&D impact drug prices and vice versa? Or, it is being over-hyped as a tool to justify high drug prices. There are umpteen instances to believe so – for example, the world’s best-selling drug – Humira of AbbVie. According to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) of September 28, 2017, the initial U.S. patent for Humira expired in December 2016, but the additional patents expire in the 2020s.

Interestingly, according to other reports, AbbVie has collected more than US$115 billion in global Humira sales since 2010. In 2018 alone its sales amounted to US$ 19.9 billion. The report reiterates, ‘AbbVie has made and will continue to make a lot of money from Humira.’ From these facts, one can presume that AbbVie’s R&D expenditure or the product acquisition cost, has long been recovered, but still doesn’t seem to have any significant impact on the drug price.

Pharma CEOs continue to repeat the same argument:

While testifying at a hearing of the Senate Finance Committee, pharma CEOs had to confront with a Senators’ question - “Prescription drugs did not become outrageously expensive by accident, Drug prices are astronomically high because that’s where pharmaceutical companies and their investors want them.” However, acknowledging that their prices are high for many patients for high R&D expenditure, the company chiefs tried to deflect blame onto the insurance industry, government and middlemen known as pharmacy benefit managers.

The CEOs also highlighted the rebates given on list prices to benefit patients. However, the reality is, under the current system, savings from rebates are not consistently passed through to patients in any form. Interestingly, despite such scenario, pharma CEOs don’t want the government negotiating drug prices directly. It’s apparent that none of their reasonings were found to be the genuine reasons for high drug prices, even by the US Senators.

Thus, pharma’s points of justification for high drug prices have not changed, over a long period of time. On the contrary, shifting greater focus on the R&D of rare diseases, where the number of patients is much less, the CEOs seem to be bolstering their same argument on a different ground, despite reducing R&D costs.

Surfaces a glaring contradiction:

Presenting the current situation from the drug industry perspective, the article titled, ‘Drug Prices and Innovation’, published in the Forbes Magazine on June 20, 2019, emphasized on some interesting points.

It said: ‘In 2018 return on investment in drug discovery/development were 1.9 percent, far below the 10.5 percent cost-of-capital - the rate-of-return the industry must provide to compete for capital with similar investments.’ The article also emphasized: ‘Under the current pricing regime, the expected returns from drug discovery do not justify the investment. They have not done so since 2010 and are expected to turn negative by 2020.’ It further added, big pharma, despite one of the highest rates of R&D spending of any industry, chronically fails to fund research sufficient to support adequate growth and returns to the average drug don’t cover the cost of development.

On the other hand, according to a presentation by CVS Health that cited Macrotrends.net as its source,pharmaceutical manufacturers’ profit margins have reportedly exceeded 26 percent for the last three years and 22 percent for the past 10 years.

This brings out again, the glaring contradiction between what is being highlighted and what is actually happening in the pharma business. Lack of transparency in this area of the drug industry, is believed to be the root cause of this confusion among many.

Conclusion:

As it has been recognized the world over, the high new drugs prices are an issue over the contentious argument of ‘high R&D expenditure’ being the ‘root cause’. It is, therefore, imperative for the stakeholders to demand transparency in this area. If finding a solution to this health-related issue is considered critical, without further delay, this needs to be expeditiously addressed.

As the saying goes, once the disease is diagnosed accurately, zeroing in on an effective treatment becomes easier. Let me hasten to add, for new, innovative and patented drugs, the situation in India is generally no different. Thus, there is no scope for any contradiction in this area, whatsoever. As the saying goes, once the disease is diagnosed accurately, zeroing in on an effective treatment becomes easier.

Voluntary implementation of ‘responsible’ drug pricing policies, by pharma manufacturers themselves, has been given a long rope. Time is running out now. If this does not happen soon, government control of drug prices will be essential, just as is being contemplated in the United States – the ‘capital’ of the free-pricing world. Moreover, it has been well documented in several studies that price control won’t jeopardize drug innovation, as pharma manufacturers will have to come out with innovative new products and treatments – event for survival of the business.

Saving lives – more lives, alongside making reasonable profits in the business, remain the primary facet of the pharma industry. However, the flip side of it, revealing a perennial saga of contradictions, such as one we discussed above, raises concerns of their being perceived as profiteering with drug prices, by many. Such practices go not only against patients’ health interest, but also negates the core purpose of existence of the industry – surely, endangering long term survival of this business model – as the modern technology unleashes its mesmerizing power for all.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Pharma’s Perception Management

Posted on September 23, 2019 by Tapan Ray

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

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

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

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

Pharma lobbying expenses are shooting north:

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

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

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

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

Whereas pharma’s lobbying output is diving south:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Managing public perception – the new ballgame to influence policies:

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

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

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

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

Is reputation mostly driven by perception?

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

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

‘Designing the future’ from the pharma industry perspective:

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

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

Creating a positive perception for pharma:

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Creating ‘Shared Value’ in Pharma – The Way Forward

Posted on July 30, 2018 by Tapan Ray

Many Pharmaceutical companies, both global and local, are struggling with a plethora of critical challenges. With the industry reputation diving south successful navigation through this headwind has become an onerous task, more than ever before.

Under this backdrop, the article, titled “Creating Shared Value” of Michael Porter and Mark Kramer, published in the Harvard Business Review (HBR) in its January – February 2011 issue, becomes very relevant to analyze the situation.

The paper says: “Companies are widely thought to be prospering at the expense of their communities. Trust in business has fallen to new lows, leading government officials to set policies that undermine competitiveness and sap economic growth. Business is caught in a vicious circle. A big part of the problem lies with companies themselves, which remain trapped in an outdated, narrow approach to value creation.”

The authors also articulated that pharma players, generally focus on optimizing short-term financial performance, overlooking the greatest unmet needs in the market as well as broader influences on their long-term success. They questioned: “Why else would companies ignore the well-being of their customers and the economic distress of the communities in which they produce and sell?”

Porter and Kramer advised the companies to bring business and society back together – redefining their purpose as creating “shared values”. It means generating economic value in a way that also produces value for society by addressing its challenges.In this article, I shall explore in this area.

Not CSR or Philanthropy, its engaging business as business, for social progress:

Creation of “Shared values” for a business is quite different from “Philanthropy” or “Corporate Social Responsivity (CSR)”. Philanthropy usually involves ‘donations to worthy social causes’ and CSR is primarily directed at compliance with community standards and good corporate citizenship. Whereas the creation of “shared value” means integrating societal improvement into economic value creation, making social improvement as an integral part of with a business model.

To create “shared values”, it is imperative for business organizations to create “social value” through active participation in addressing the social issues and needs related to the business. Or in other words, the creation of “shared values” would entail striking a right balance between “social value” and the “business value.”

An article titled “What Is the Social Value of Pharmaceuticals?”, published by FSG on February 13, 2014 dwells on the business relevance of creation of “social value” in the pharma industry. It writes,creation of “social value” corresponds to effecting positive change along the major societal challenges, such as affordable health care, by working more in collaboration with other stakeholders to address the needs of the underserved through commensurate value creation. This entails engagement of a business as a business, not as a charitable donor, nor through public relations, for social progress.

A resolution to create “shared value” in the pharma industry:

An interesting article, featured in SFGATE of the San Francisco Chronicle on July 11, 2018, elucidated that the reputations of drug makers have taken a hit over the past few years as the public and politicians have called out the companies for high prescription drug prices that even Americans are facing. Recently, President Donald Trump, reportedly, singled out the top pharma companies of the world for raising the list prices on some of its prescriptions.

Possibly it’s a sheer coincidence, but on the same day, an intent of creating “shared values” with the society got reflected in the statement of the president of the Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research. The officialexplained, why his company has a ‘contract with society’. He admitted that: The cost of health care, which has been rising has left many on the hook for a larger amount of their prescription drug cost that can place a big burden on patients in many countries, including the United States.

Consequently, the pressure from the people who need medications is now on the pharmaceutical companies for doing right, he added. Thus, Novartis feels:”We have a contract with society, and society is our shareholder. A company like ours exists to have a definitive impact on life threatening diseases, to keep people alive and healthy for a long, long time, full stop” – the official concluded.

A laudable intent, but is it credible?

The concept of pharma having a contract with the society ‘to keep people alive and healthy for a long, long time,’ is laudable, but is it credible? This question arises because, just before public articulation of this intent, the same company, reportedly, entered into USD 1.2-million contract with President Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, allegedly, to provide access to the US President.

The exact reason for the same is being investigated by competent authorities, including the US Senators. However, another report highlighted, “Novartis is among the drug companies that has put through significant price increases for its products since Trump took office in 2017 – in some cases more than 20 percent.”

Another repot of July 09, 2018, quoting a tweet of the US President, poured more cold water on the warm intent of pharma’s ‘contract with the society.’ According to this article President Trump tweeted: “Pfizer & others should be ashamed that they have raised drug prices for no reason. They are merely taking advantage of the poor & others unable to defend themselves, while at the same time giving bargain basement prices to other countries in Europe & elsewhere. We will respond!”

Consistently declining pharma’s image and public trust:

Many believe that due to such hyperbolic statements and conflicting actions of pharma, over a long period time, are driving down the public image and trust on the industry, in general, from deep to deeper level, which has not found its bottom, just yet.

The reality gets reflected in various well-recognized polls, conducted even in the top pharma market of the world, which is also one of the richest nations, globally. August 2017 Gallup Poll on ‘Business and Industry Sector Ratings,’ features pharma industry at the very bottom of the ranking, just above the Federal government.

The concern gets reverberated in the February 03, 2017 article titled, ‘How Pharma Can Fix Its Reputation and Its Business at the Same Time,’ published in the Harvard Business Review (HBR). The paper observes that the worrisome mix of little growth potential and low reputation prompts the pharma players, among other actions, developing new treatments for neglected populations, and pricing existing products at affordable levels – avoiding corruption and price collusion.

How will “shared value” creation help pharma?

The process of creating “shared values” will involve creating “social value” with all sincerity and a clearly defined purpose. Its outcome should be measurable, and the impact felt by the society. In tandem, striking a right balance between “social value” and the “business value” would call for a metamorphosis in the concept of doing business.

There aren’t too many examples of creation ‘shared values’ by pharma companies, yet. However, to illustrate this point, let me quote one such that was originated from India, which I had the privilege to observe closely. This initiative is ‘Arogya Parivar (healthy family) of Novartis in India.

‘Arogya Parivar’ is a ‘for-profit’ social initiative developed by Novartis to reach the under-served millions living at the bottom of the pyramid in rural India. As Novartis claims, since its launch in 2007, ‘Arogya Parivar’ is proving to be both a force for improving health in rural communities and a sustainable business. ‘Arogya Parivar’ is a commercially-viable program and began returning a profit after 30 months with sales increasing 25-fold, since launch. After successful implementation of this initiative in India, the company has created similar programs in Kenya, Indonesia and Vietnam, according to Novartis.

Conclusion:

The concept of ‘shared values’ emphasizes that business success of a company is closely related to the progress, development and wellbeing of the society where it transacts the business. This can be achieved by striking a right balance between the social need and the business need. In the pharma space too, the value creation in the business value chain may need to be redesigned to meet the ‘social value’. This happened as in the case of ‘Arogya Parivar’ initiative of Novartis in India.

Creating robust business models based on ‘shared values’, in sync with the business-specific needs of the society can help make more profit in areas where there is none, at present. It will also facilitate achieving additional growth of the organization and improve long-term competitiveness.

Consequently, pharma can earn recognition of the society as a powerful contributor for containing suffering and even death of many ailing patients, by increasing access to affordable medicines for those who need these most. This, in turn, would help pharma companies to improve their public image and reputation. Let me hasten to add that provided, of course, no countermeasures are taken by them, surreptitiously, as I have discussed above.

The good news is, some pharma players have already initiated action in this direction. Thus, I reckon, many of them would soon realize that creating ‘shared value – based’ business models are the way forward for sustainable business excellence.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Healthcare in India And Hierarchy of Needs

Posted on November 6, 2017 by Tapan Ray

“Russia and India climb World Bank’s Doing Business rankings”, was a headline in the Financial Times on October 31, 2017. India jumped 30 places – from 130 out of 190. Almost instantly, the domestic media flashed it all across the country, as the prime news item of the day. It brought great satisfaction to many, and very rightly so.

The news is also worth cheering as it ignites the hope of a large section of the society that sometime in the future more business will come into the country, more jobs will be created, and in that process India will emerge as a more healthy and wealthy nation, just as many other countries around the world.

This loud cheer, in tandem, also transcends into a hope for a well-oiled public healthcare system functioning efficiently in India, alongside greater wealth creation. This is because, while expecting a healthier nation, one can’t possibly keep the public healthcare system of the country out of it, altogether. Thus, I reckon, it won’t be quite out of place to have a quick look at India’s current ranking on other healthcare related indices too, such as ‘Healthcare Index’ and ‘Human Development Index’ and ‘Hunger Index’:

Healthcare index:

With that perspective, when go through the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016, published in The Lancet on September 16, 2017, it will be difficult to wish away the fact that India ranks 154 among 195 countries in ‘Healthcare Index’. Surprisingly, India ranks much behind Sri Lanka (72.8), Bangladesh (51.7), Bhutan (52.7) and Nepal (50.8) though, of course, above Pakistan (43.1) and Afghanistan (32.5). This is what it is, regardless of the fact that India’s Healthcare Access and Quality (HAQ) index has increased by 14.1 – from 30.7 in 1990 to 44.8 in 2015.

Human Development Index:

The ranking of India in the Human Development Index (HDI) is also not encouraging, either. Many would know, HDI is a composite index of life expectancy, education, and per capita income, which are used to rank countries in human development. As life expectancy also depends on the quality of healthcare, HDI has a significant bearing on this count, as well.

The ‘2016 Human Development Index Report (HDR)’ released by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) in March 2017 shows that India has slipped by one rank from 130 to 131, among 188 countries. According to UNDP, ‘in the past decades, there has been significant gains in human development levels almost in every country, but millions of people have not benefited from this progress. This report highlights who have been left behind and why?’

I shall dwell on the ‘Global Hunger Index Report’ below at an appropriate context.

Why is this comparison between different indices…and now?

The above question is indeed a very valid one. Nonetheless, it is important to do so. I am quoting these rankings to flag the sharp contrast in our mindset to rejoice the good rankings, and lampooning the adverse ones, citing one reason or the other.

It is obvious from the general euphoria witnessed by many on such good news – highlighted so well by the print, television and social media, with high decibel discussions by experts and politicians. There is nothing wrong in doing that, in any way. However, similar media discussions were not evident for taking effective corrective measures, soon, when ‘global burden of disease rankings’ or ‘Human Development Index Report (HDR)’ or the ‘Global Hunger Index’ rankings were published in September, March and October 2017, respectively.

Does it therefore mean that effectively addressing issues related to crumbling public healthcare infrastructure in the country attracts much lesser importance than ensuring ease of doing business in the country? Do both the politicians and the voters also consider so? Perhaps the answer is yes, as many would envisage in the largest democracy of the world.

What’s happening elsewhere?

In many developed and also the developing countries of the world, general public or voters’ expectations for having an affordable and robust public healthcare delivery system from the respective Governments seem to be high. Consequently, it also directs the focus of the politicians or lawmakers on the same. This scenario includes even the oldest democracy of the world – America. Such expectations on comprehensive healthcare covers the need for affordable drug prices too.

That voters are greatly concerned about healthcare in those countries is supported by many contemporary surveys. Just before the last year’s American Presidential election, Kaiser Health Tracking Poll: September 2016, substantiated this point. It said, besides considering personal characteristics of the candidates, the voters clearly articulated their priority on patient-friendly healthcare laws and affordable drug prices, as follows:

Over 66 percent of voters expressed that healthcare law is very important to their vote
77 percent said prescription drug costs are unreasonable, expressing widespread support for a variety of actions in order to keep healthcare costs down

Accordingly, The New York Times on September 17, 2017 reported: “The public is angry about the skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs. Surveys have shown that high drug prices rank near the top of consumers’ health care concerns, and politicians in both parties - including President Trump — have vowed to do something about it.”

I haven’t come across such widespread demand from the voters getting captured in any survey, before either any State Assembly or the Parliament elections in India. Hence, public healthcare continues to languish in the country, as various Governments come and go.

What happens post-election in the oldest democracy?

We have enough examples that post-election, the oldest democracy of the world tries to satisfy the well-articulated healthcare needs of the voters, on priority. To illustrate the point, let me help recapitulate what happened in this regard, immediately after the last two Presidential elections in America.

After swearing in on January 20, 2009, then American President Barack Obama, as expected by the voters and promised by him accordingly, enacted the Affordable Care Act (ACA), popularly known as ‘Obamacare’, almost within a year’s time – on March 23, 2010. Similarly, within a few months of swearing in as the American President, Donald Trump administration is mulling to address the voters demand and his electoral promise to make the prescription drugs more affordable.

Public demand and outcry for affordable healthcare, including affordable drugs have led to several serious consequential developments in the United States. Let me illustrate this point with another example of recent lawsuits filed against alleged price fixing of generic drugs – many of these are new, but a few started in the last few years.

Vigil on drug prices continues:

As high drug prices are a burning issue even in America, a lot many steps are being taken there on that issue – just as many other developed and developing countries are taking.

It is rather well known that even after enactment of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010, the Department of Justice of the country expanded probing into the allegation of price fixing by many generic drug manufacturers operating in America. One such illustration is October 31, 2017 public notice of the State Attorney General (AG) of Connecticut. It states that the AG is leading a coalition of 46-states in new, expanded complaint in Federal Generic Drug Antitrust Lawsuit. It further mentioned: States allege broad, industry-wide understanding among numerous drug manufacturers to restrain competition and raise prices on 15 generic drugs, where some senior executives have been sued.

Interestingly, in this notice the AG said, “The generic drug market was conceived as a way to help bring down the cost of prescription medications. For years, those savings have not been realized, and instead the prices of many generic drugs have skyrocketed.” He alleged that the defendant companies’ collusion was so pervasive that it essentially eliminated competition from the market for the identified 15 drugs in its entirety. ‘Ongoing investigation continues to uncover additional evidence, and we anticipate bringing more claims involving additional companies and drugs at the appropriate time,” the Attorney General further added.

By the way, the expanded complaint of the states reportedly also includes several large Indian companies, such Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Emcure, Glenmark, Sun Pharma, and Zydus Pharma. Curiously, 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.

Examples such as this vindicate, even if a robust public healthcare system is put in place, the regulators would still keep a careful vigil on drug prices.

Getting back to the key link between some indices:

Let me now get back to where I started from – the link between ‘ease of doing business’ and ‘becoming a healthy and wealthy’ nation, over a period of time. This would subsequently bring us to the link between healthy nation and the existence of a robust and functioning affordable public healthcare system in the country.

From that angle, I raised a key question. Why the general public, and specifically the voters in India aren’t making effective delivery of an affordable public healthcare as one of the top priority areas while voting for or against a political dispensation? The question assumes greater relevance when one sees it happening in many other countries, as discussed above. Is it, therefore, worth pondering whether this issue can be explained, at least to a great extent, by applying the well-known ‘Maslow’s theory of hierarchy of needs.’

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and hunger index:

As the literature says, ‘Maslow’s hierarchy of needs’ is a theory of motivation in psychology developed by Abraham Maslow in 1943. He believed people move through different stages of five needs that motivate our behavior. He called these needs physiological, safety, love and belonging (social), esteem, and self-actualization.

As we see, the first two basic needs are physiological and then safety. Maslow explains the ‘physiological needs’ as food, water, sleep, and basic biological functions. When these physiological needs are adequately met, our safety needs would usually dominate individual behavior.

Similarly, Maslow’s ‘safety needs’ in the modern era are generally expressed as the needs of job security, financial security, and health and well-being, among a few others. Thus, the need for healthcare falls under ‘safety needs’, following the most basic ‘physiological needs’.

As Food is one the first basic needs, India’s current ranking in the ‘Global Hunger Index (GHI)’, would suggest this primary need of having at least two square meals of nutritious food a day, has not been adequately met by a large population of Indians, not just yet.

India’s ranking in the Global Hunger Index (GHI):

The Global Hunger Index (GHI) has been defined as a multidimensional statistical tool used to describe the state of countries’ hunger situation. The GHI measures progress and failures in the global fight against hunger. It is now, reportedly, in its 12th year, ranking countries based on four key indicators – undernourishment, child mortality, child wasting and child stunting.

The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) report, titled ‘2017 global hunger index: The inequalities of hunger ’, indicates that India ranks below many of its neighboring countries, such as China (29th in rank), Nepal (72), Myanmar (77), Sri Lank (84) and Bangladesh (88), but ahead of Pakistan (106) and Afghanistan (107). Just for the sake of interest, North Korea ranks 93rd while Iraq is in 78th position.

The primary basic need of food and nutrition does not seem to have been fully met for a large Indian voter population, as yet. Many of them are still struggling and searching for appropriate means of earning a dignified livelihood. It includes support in agricultural production and the likes. Thus, many voters don’t feel yet, the second level of need that prompts a vocal demand for an affordable and robust public healthcare system in the country. The same situation continues, despite ‘out of pocket’ expenditure on healthcare being one of the highest in India, alongside the cost of drugs too.

Conclusion:

This brings us to the key question – When would the demand for having an affordable and robust public healthcare system in the country, assume priority for the general public in India, and the voters, in particular?

Sans Government’s sharp focus on public healthcare, including the cost of drugs, devices, and education, it will be challenging for a democracy of India’s size to make a decisive move, for a long term – from average to good – and then from good to great, even in the economic parameters.

Applying Maslow’s hierarchy of needs onto various health related global indices, it appears that the primary basic need of food and nutrition has not been fully met for a large Indian voter population, as yet. This possibly makes a large section of Indian voters to move into the second level of need, raising a widespread vocal demand for an affordable and robust public healthcare system in the country.

Rejoicing country’s advancement in the World Bank’s ranking on the ease of doing business by 30 points in a year has its own merits. However, in the same yardstick, doesn’t health care losing the priority focus of the nation also highlight the demerits of misplaced priority in a country’s governance process, and just because the voters are not quite demanding on this issue?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Dwindling Drug Innovation: Declining Image: Unchanged Business And Advocacy Models

Posted on February 20, 2017 by Tapan Ray

A report of ‘The United States International Trade Commission (USITC)’ released on December 22, 2014 suggested, if tariffs and investment restrictions were fully eliminated, and standards of IP protection were made comparable to the U.S and Western European levels, American exports to India would rise by two-thirds.

A year later, on February 01, 2015 an interesting news article highlighted that the flashpoint of this issue “has clearly been pharmaceutical companies and their lobby group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), which have made some of the strongest representations to the US government against India’s IPR regime.” The same report also indicated that many other companies including the aircraft maker Boeing and the generic drug giant Abbott felt that India offered adequate IP protection and that they had not experienced major IP problems in the country.

The above stance of USITC continued echoing right from the beginning of this year. In January 2017, the CEO of US Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) reportedly told our Prime Minister Narendra Modi, ‘if he follows western practices on intellectual property protection, his country would see a “tidal wave” of biotech industry investment.’

On February 08, 2017, when the fifth edition of ‘U.S. Chamber International IP Index’ report was released by the ‘Global Intellectual Property Center (GIPC)’, India featured in the 43^rd rank out of 45 countries. With this India remained virtually at the bottom of the IP index for the fourth year on the trot. The GIPC report underscored India’s “anaemic IPR policy”, Section 3.d of the Indian Patents Act, besides several others, as major market access barriers.

On February 14, 2017, another news article reported that America’s pharma sector has asked the US Trade Representative (USTR) to continue to keep India on its Priority Watch List (PWL), which includes countries that are alleged violators of US patent laws, claiming that the environment on the ground remains ‘challenging’ in India. Among the areas of concern for the US pharma companies operating in India, unpredictable IP environment, high tariffs and taxes on medicines, regulatory data protection failure, discriminatory and non-transparent market access policies and unpredictable environment for clinical research were listed among others.

With this backdrop, the key question that haunts many industry watchers, when the World Trade Organization (WTO) has no complaint with the Indian Patents Act 2005, and finds it TRIPS compliant, why are these reports coming from the United States consistently emphasizing that the current IP regime of the country is a key barrier to market access, especially for research-based pharma companies?

Is the core issue of the global pharma industry in India is predominantly not encouraging innovation well enough, or the dearth of inadequate Intellectual Property (IP) protection – or it is something beyond that, and is more fundamental in nature. In this article, I shall dwell in this area, first in the global perspective, and then zeroing-in to India.

A global perspective:

“The past 60 years have seen huge advances in many of the scientific, technological and managerial factors that should tend to raise the efficiency of commercial drug research and development (R&D). Yet the number of new drugs approved per billion US dollars spent on R&D has halved roughly every 9 years since 1950, falling around 80-fold in inflation-adjusted terms. There have been many proposed solutions to the problem of declining R&D efficiency. However, their apparent lack of impact so far and the contrast between improving inputs and declining output in terms of the number of new drugs make it sensible to ask whether the underlying problems have been correctly diagnosed,” articulated an important article published on March 01, 2012 in the Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

This trend continues, virtually unchanged. R&D efficiency continues to remain a cause of great concern to the research-based global pharmaceutical companies. Accordingly, a 2016 report of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions titled, ‘Measuring the return of pharmaceutical innovation’, among other findings, has captured the following:

Annual projected pharma R&D return declines to 3.7 percent from 10.1 percent in 2010
Peak sales per asset fall 11.4 percent year-on-year since 2010

What then is its basic solution?

When the right solution eludes:

In this scenario, when the right solution is still eluding, to record growth in corporate profit and earning to meet shareholders’ expectations, keeping the existing business model intact, the global research-based pharma companies have the following two limited options, which they are actively pursuing:

Take high price increases for the existing products
Launch the limited new products at a very high price

A report published in The First Word Pharma on October 06, 2015 quoting The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) vindicated exercising the first option. It reported that many drug makers have succeeded in increasing revenue on products despite a flat or declining demand by consistently increasing prices. An analysis revealed that revenue for the top 30 products in the United States zoomed by 61 percent over the past five years, three times the increase in the number of prescriptions sold over that period. While another report by Credit Suisse illustrated that 80 percent of the growth in net profit for the top 20 drug makers was attributable to price hikes.

To substantiate application of the second option, I quote from the CBS News, which on April 05, 2016 reported that an investigation into the cost of prescription drugs revealed huge price hikes over the past five years. Several brand name medications more than doubled in price. Again, on August 24, 2016, it gave a sense of this trend with the following examples, covering the launch price of innovative drug, and price increases of generic drugs:

Gilead fixed their new hepatitis C drug Sovaldi’s cost at US$ 900 – 1,000 per pill
Mylan Pharmaceuticals’ increased the cost of its anti-allergic drug EpiPen from about US$ 57 in 2007 to more than US$ 500 in 2016
Turing Pharmaceuticals increased the price of the anti-malaria drug Daraprim by 5,000 percent last year, charging US$ 750 per pill for a drug that used to cost US$ 13.50 per pill.

PhRMA – the often quoted trade association in America, representing the country’s leading pharma and bio-pharmaceutical research-based companies, reportedly said in a statement: “Focusing solely on the list prices of medicines is misleading because it ignores the significant discounts and rebates negotiated by insurers and pharmacy benefit managers.”

Even if, this argument is accepted as such, the tough impact of regular hefty drug price increases on the consumers is real, unquestionably.

The current business model leaves behind many patients:

The ‘Access to Medicine Index 2016’ report also finds that companies generally do not systematically target populations with the highest needs in their registration, pricing and licensing actions. Although, we continue to make progress toward major public health goals, such as, polio is close to being eradicated, as is guinea worm; more than 45 percent of people living with HIV/AIDS have access to ARVs; important vaccines for malaria and dengue fever are being implemented, still business models for providing healthcare are leaving many people behind. Globally, two billion people cannot access the medicines they need, most of whom live hand to mouth.

Particularly, the big global pharma companies, as the innovators and producers of life-saving medicines, need to act much earlier in the patients’ value chain. Without or inadequate action by these companies, alongside governments, NGOs and others, it will be impossible to bring modern medicine to everyone.

Public outrage over high drug prices:

Many studies indicate that the research-based global pharma and biotech companies, still strive hard to stick to their existing overall business models with a sharp focus on improving both the top and bottom lines of the business, though the R&D projects are becoming lesser and lesser productive. This prompts them resorting to hefty price increases, and introducing new products with high price. Fueled by this self-serving mindset, a simmering public outrage, globally, over high drug prices is fast catching up, further undermining the trust in the industry, as another report says.

No wonder why in the Gallup Poll of August 15, 2016, pharmaceutical industry featured just one above the bottom among the ‘Worst-Rated U.S. Business Sectors’. Moreover, even the Harris Poll released on January 17, 2017 found that 91 percent of U.S. consumers believe pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies put profits over patients.

The industry continues chasing rainbows:

In response to this mounting stakeholders’ criticism, arguably the richest pharma association in the world in its member subscriptions – PhRMA, reportedly launched a new ad campaign costing tens of millions of dollars on January 25, 2017. It aims to highlight innovation and scientific breakthroughs to change the public’s negative perception of the industry. This campaign will span across television, print, digital, and radio, the report elaborates.

Following is an example, as reported, listing three important and interesting comments on this campaign for pharma image revamp from some of those who matter:

Lawmaker Peter Welch, who chairs the House Democratic Caucus’ task force on drug pricing, said, “The issue here is not whether drugs have some benefits … The issue is whether pharma is going to be able to kill us with their pricing power or whether we will get transparency and competition.” He added, “The campaign is all about defending their pricing power and pushing their product.”

Similarly, another lawmaker Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said, “This is [PhRMA] trying to change the subject and to try and divert people’s attention away from drug pricing. Continuing to ignore drug pricing is probably not going to work.”

Ameet Sarpatwari, a drug pricing policy researcher at Harvard University said, “It’s really a matter of being tone deaf in terms of thinking somehow that this is going to change public perception”

Isn’t a great example of chasing rainbows by the industry association, in the number one pharma and biotech market of the world, instead of amending to the root cause of this burning issue?

The situation in India:

In this backdrop, amid a tough global situation, let me assess the related Indian scenario.

The research-based global pharma companies, apparently want to introduce the whole range of their patented products at a high price and in a monopolistic situation in India too, for much higher growth in revenue and profits. Thus, they are consistently pushing hard, with all guns blazing, for major changes in the Indian Patents Act 2005, which would involve jettisoning many patients’ health interest related safeguard conditions enshrined in the Act, such as Section 3.d that restricts ever-greening of patents, and introducing several other tougher IP measures, such as data exclusivity under the garb of imaginary patient safety issues with generic drugs.

They don’t seem to like price control of essential drugs in India, either. While intensely lobbying for it, the lobbyists vehemently argue in favor of the absurd, which is the affordability of medicines does not help to increase drug access to all those who need these most, even when on the ground, the out of pocket expenses for drugs in the country is as high as around 65 percent and universal health care does exist in the country, much to the dismay of many.

It has now been generally established by many global experts, including our own National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) that market competition does not necessarily bring down drug prices, including for generics, quite unlike many other industries, but various pressure groups, including the media, can catalyze it, and quite effectively. What has happened recently with the cardiac stents price in the country, is just an example.

Is the devil in the traditional pharma business model?

An article titled, “How Pharma Can Fix Its Reputation and Its Business at the Same Time”, published on February 03, 2017 in The Harvard Business Review, emphatically states: “It’s a fact that the current business model of pharma companies is not working efficiently.” It suggests, besides enhancing the current unenviable public image of the industry, expanding access to medicines will help pharma companies enhance shareholder value. The success of a new business model depends on both the willingness and the ability of pharmaceutical companies to fully integrate access to medicine into their business strategies, the article emphasizes.

A July 2015 paper of McKinsey & Company titled, “Pharma’s next challenge”, also reiterates that in the developed economies, market access is chiefly concerned with pricing, and with satisfying local conditions. Whereas, in the emerging markets, to overcome the barriers, pharma players need to shift the focus of their commercial models from marketing and sales to access, and from brand-by-brand access planning to integrated cross-brand planning.

In pursuit of a new model:

Based on the above premises, the search for a new pharma business model, especially for the research-based pharma companies, in my view, may broadly focus on the following areas:

Learn from innovation models of the IT industry: Win-Win collaborative innovation models, including ‘Open Source Drug Discovery’, if scaled up, could reduce the cost of innovation significantly and making the new innovative drugs generally affordable. Thus, larger volume sales may adequately offset a voluntary cut in the product margin, creating a multiplier effect.

Be a part of the solution and not the problem: Because of fiercely pushing the blatant self-serving agenda, inconveniencing many patients, the core mindset of the pharma industry is considered by many as an integral part of the main problem. While pharma industry, quite rightly, seek more market access, they need to act as a facilitator too, to improve general access to medicines, in various imaginative ways, which is, of course, possible. This will make the pharma industry to be a part of the solution to the national problem, over a period of time.

Walk the talk: While pharma industry speaks all right things, in terms of ethical conduct of business, at a time when both national and international media frequently expose their gross wrongdoings. This continues, unabated. Sales and marketing functions are indeed very important, but not at the cost of good corporate governance. I am aware, all compliance rules exist immaculately on paper for many companies, but the senior management officials should demonstrate that they walk the talk, giving exemplary punishment to the wrongdoers, including their peers.

Change the current advocacy model: The current advocacy model of the research-based pharma companies is too self-serving. For example, in India it mostly demands, which is bordering obsession, to change the IP laws of a sovereign country, when the World Trade Organization (WTO) has no problem with these, whatsoever. There is a need for them to demonstrate, sans any shade of arrogance, visible respect to any country’s general sentiment on its Patents Act, as it’s their own decision to operate in those countries. An imaginative win-win change in this area, would significantly help to create a strong bond and mutual respect with other important stakeholders.

Are senior citizens in pharma business a barrier to change?

A recent white paper of ‘Eye for Pharma’, says in its conclusion “many of those now running pharma organizations have come through the ‘golden age’ of pharma and so may be reluctant to change”. Does this issue need to be addressed first by the Independent Directors of the respective Boards of the pharma companies?

In conclusion:

Many questions do spring up while addressing this issue. One common belief is that, pharma industry, in general, is reluctant to change its traditional business model, beyond just tweaking, despite declining overall productivity and in its public image.

In advocacy initiatives, while drawing stakeholders’ attention to the core grievance agenda, though they try hard to project their business focus on patients, especially using the buzzwords, such as, ‘patient centric approach’ or ‘patient engagement’, among many others, has anything visibly changed, just yet?

As the business environment is getting tougher and consumer expectations are fast changing, drug innovation is also steadily dwindling, so is the declining industry image. However, pharma business and advocacy models continue to remain mostly unchanged. It remains intriguing, why are the ‘wise guys’ of pharma business still so deeply obsessed with chasing rainbows, with so much of zeal, hectic activity and money, while majority of patients keeps bearing the brunt?

By: Tapan J. Ray

How Cost-Effective Are New Cancer Drugs?

Posted on January 30, 2017 by Tapan Ray

The main reason why cancer is so serious a disease, is the ability of the malignant cells to spread in the body, both locally by moving into nearby normal tissue, and regionally to nearby lymph nodes, tissues, or organs, affecting even the distant parts of the body. When this happens, doctors term it as metastatic or stage IV (four) cancer.

Although most patients with metastatic tumors would eventually die of cancer, the treatment with various types of anticancer drugs, could help prolong life, in varying degree. No wonder, many new anticancer drugs now obtain regulatory approval based on their effectiveness on metastatic cancer patients. Consequently, it has now become almost a routine to administer newer anticancer drugs to patients with early stage of disease, after they have undergone surgery or radiotherapy.

But, these lifesaving drugs are expensive – very expensive! For example, a newer anticancer treatment is often priced at US$ 100,000 or more per patient, which, obviously, a large majority of the population can’t just afford.

Are these new drugs cost-effective?

To put in simple words, cost effectiveness of a drug is generally ‘expressed in terms of a ratio where the denominator is a gain in health from a measure (years of life, premature births averted, sight-years gained) and the numerator is the cost associated with the health gain.’

From this perspective, a January 2015 research study titled, “Pricing In The Market For Anticancer Drugs”, published by the National Bureau Of Economic Research of the United States observed that anticancer drugs like bevacizumab (US$ 50,000 per treatment episode) and ipilimumab (US$120,000 per episode) have fueled the perception that the launch prices of anticancer drugs are fast increasing over time.

To evaluate the pricing trend of these drugs, the researchers used an original dataset of 58 anticancer drugs, approved between 1995 and 2013, and found that launch-prices, adjusted for inflation and drugs’ survival benefits, increased by 10 percent, or about US$ 8,500, per year. This study was restricted to drugs administered with the primary intent of extending survival time for cancer patients and drugs for which survival benefits have been estimated in trials or modeling studies. The researchers did not consider drugs administered to treat pain or drugs that are administered to alleviate the side effects of cancer treatments.

The paper concluded, as compared to the older ones, newer anticancer treatments, generally, are less cost-effective. Despite this fact, the prices of these drugs are rising faster than their overall effectiveness.

How much do these drugs cost to prolong a year of life for cancer patients?

Another paper, titled “Cancer Drugs Aren’t As Cost-Effective As They Used To Be”, published in the Forbes magazine on September 30, 2015, expressed serious concern on the declining cost-effectiveness of new anticancer drugs. The author termed this trend as unacceptable, and more disturbing when providing just a year of life to cancer patients costs around US$ 350,000 to even US$ 800,000. High prices should reflect large benefits, and we need to demand value out of medical interventions – he recommended.

Do the claims of efficacy also reflect the real-world effectiveness?

Providing an answer to this question, a very recent article titled, “Assessment of Overall Survival, Quality of Life, and Safety Benefits Associated With New Cancer Medicines”, published in the well reputed medical journal ‘JAMA Oncology’ on December 29, 2016, concluded as follows:

“Although innovation in the oncology drug market has contributed to improvements in therapy, the magnitude and dimension of clinical benefits vary widely, and there may be reasons to doubt that claims of efficacy reflect real-world effectiveness exactly.”

As stated above, this conclusion was drawn by the researchers after a detail study on the overall survival, quality of life, and safety benefits of recently licensed cancer medicines, as there was a dearth of evidence on the impact of newly licensed cancer medicines.

The authors analyzed in detail health technology assessment reports of 62 cancer drugs approved in the United States and Europe between 2003 and 2013, and found that these were associated with increased overall survival by an average of 3.43 months between 2003 and 2013. Following is a summary of the detail findings:

43 percent increased overall survival by 3 months or longer
11 percent by less than 3 months
30 percent was not associated with any increase in overall survival, which means almost one third of these drugs lacked evidence to suggest their increased survival rate when compared to alternative treatments
Most new cancer drugs, though improved quality of life, were associated with reduced patient safety

The researchers expect this study to support clinical practice, and promote value-based decision-making in the cancer drug treatment, besides assessing their cost-effectiveness.

Some overseas Cancer Institutes protested:

In 2012, doctors at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center reportedly announced through ‘The New York Times’ that their hospital would not be using Zaltrap, a newly patented colorectal cancer drug at that time, from Sanofi. This action of the Sloan-Kettering doctors compelled Sanofi to cut the price of Zaltrap by half.

Unlike India, where prices of even cancer drugs do not seem to be a great issue with the medical profession, just yet, the top cancer specialists of the American Society of Clinical Oncology are reportedly working out a framework for rating and selecting cancer drugs not only for their benefits and side effects, but prices as well.

In a 2015 paper, a group of cancer specialists from Mayo Clinic also articulated, that the oft-repeated arguments of price controls stifle innovation are not good enough to justify unusually high prices of these drugs. Their solution for this problem includes value-based pricing and NICE like body of the United Kingdom.

This Interesting Video from Mayo Clinic justifies the argument.

Was it a tongue-in-cheek action from India?

On March 9, 2012, India did send a signal to global pharma players on its apparent unhappiness of astronomical pricing of patented new cancer drugs in the country. The then Indian Patent Controller General, on that day, issued the first ever Compulsory License (CL) to a domestic drug manufacturer Natco, allowing it to sell a generic equivalent of a kidney cancer treatment drug from Bayer – Nexavar, at a small fraction of the originator’s price.

However, nothing has changed significantly since then on the ground for cancer drugs in the country. Hence, many construe the above action of the Government no more than mere tokenism.

In this context, it won’t be out of place recapitulating an article, published in a global business magazine on December 5, 2013 that quoted Marijn Dekkers, the then CEO of Bayer AG as follows:

“Bayer didn’t develop its cancer drug, Nexavar (sorafenib) for India, but for Western Patients that can afford it.”

Whether, CL is the right approach to resolve allegedly ‘profiteering mindset’ at the cost of human lives, is a different subject of discussion.

VBP concept is gaining ground:

The concept of ‘Value-Based Pricing (VBP)’, has started gaining ground in the developed markets of the world, prompting the pharmaceutical companies generate requisite ‘health outcome’ data using similar or equivalent products.

Cost of incremental value that a product delivers over the existing ones, is of key significance, and should always be the order of the day. Some independent organizations such as, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the UK have taken a leading role in this area.

Intriguingly, in India, public health related issues, however pressing these are, still do not seem to arrest much attention of the government to provide significant relief to a large majority of population in the country.

Conclusion:

Warren Buffet – the financial investor of global repute once said, “Price is what you pay. Value is what you get.” Unfortunately, this dictum is not applicable to the consumers of high priced life-saving drugs, such as, for cancer.

Prices of new drugs for the treatment of life-threatening ailments, such as cancer, are increasingly becoming unsustainable, across the world, and more in India. As articulated by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2014, this is mainly because their prices are disconnected from the actual therapeutic value of products.

Currently, a sizable number of poor and even middle-income patients, who spend their entire life’s saving for treatment of a disease like cancer, have been virtually priced out of the patented new cancer drugs market.

The plight of such patients is worse in India, and would continue to be so, especially when no trace of Universal Health Care/Coverage (UHC) is currently visible anywhere near the healthcare horizon of the country.

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: prices

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

On The Flip Side of Pharma Industry: A Saga of Perennial Contradictions

Pharma’s Perception Management

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

Healthcare in India And Hierarchy of Needs

Dwindling Drug Innovation: Declining Image: Unchanged Business And Advocacy Models

How Cost-Effective Are New Cancer Drugs?