Criticality of Bridging the Skill Gap in Today’s Indian Pharma Industry

Posted on September 17, 2023 by Tapan Ray

To address the shortage of adequately skilled workers in the country, in 2023, the Government of India released a new version of the national skill development initiative called Pradhan Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana 4.0 (PMKVY 4.0). It is touted as a major upgrade over the previous versions of the scheme and aims to train 100 million people in different skills by 2024. This is expected to have a positive impact on the economy, creating new employment opportunities.

In this article, I shall deliberate on its current relevance in the Indian pharmaceutical industry. Let me start with some of the new features of this scheme and their relevance to the drug industry as I move on.

Some new features and details of the scheme:

As I see it, PMKVY 4.0 includes a number of new features and details over the previous versions, as follows:

A focus on high-demand skills: The scheme will focus on training people in high-demand skills, such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, and cloud computing.
A greater emphasis on apprenticeships: The scheme will encourage more apprenticeships, which will provide trainees with hands-on experience.
A focus on women and underrepresented groups: The scheme will make special efforts to train women and underrepresented groups.
A greater focus on quality: The scheme will have a stronger focus on quality assurance to ensure that trainees are getting the best possible training.

Similarly, the specific details of the scheme include:

The scheme will be implemented by the National Skill Development Corporation (NSDC).
The scheme will cover a wide range of skills, including IT, manufacturing, healthcare, and retail.
The training will be provided by a network of training providers, including government institutions, private training institutes, and industry partners.
The training will be free for all eligible candidates.
The scheme will also provide financial assistance to trainees to help them cover their living expenses during the training period.

Studies on the lack of a skilled workforce in the Indian pharma industry:

In tandem with the above, the lack of a skilled workforce in the Indian pharmaceutical industry has also emerged as a major concern in 2023. The industry is growing rapidly, creating a high demand for skilled workers.

Unfortunately, a huge shortage of adequately skilled workers keeps increasing. A contemporary study by the Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance found that the industry will need an additional 1 million skilled workers by 2025. Moreover, the National Skill Development Corporation (NSDC) has also identified the pharmaceutical industry as one of the top 10 industries facing a shortage of skilled workers.

Factors contributing to this shortage:

Several factors have contributed to this shortage, including:

The rapid growth of the Indian pharmaceutical industry: The Indian pharmaceutical industry is growing at a rate of 10% per year. This rapid growth has created a demand for skilled workers that the industry is struggling to meet.

The increasing complexity of pharmaceutical manufacturing and marketing: Both are becoming increasingly complex, demanding employees with different skill sets. who have the knowledge and skills to operate complex equipment and follow strict procedures in the manufacturing process. Similarly, pharmaceutical marketing is also becoming increasingly complex due to the increasing number of regulations governing the industry, the growing importance of digital marketing, and the need to target a wider range of patients with varied demands and expectations.

The lack of adequate training opportunities: There are not enough training opportunities available to meet the demand for skilled workers in the pharmaceutical industry. This is due to a number of factors, including the high cost of training and the lack of qualified trainers.

Mismatch between salary and expectations: There is often a mismatch between the salary offered and employee expectations. The average salary offered in pharmaceutical marketing is not as high as in other industries, such as technology. This makes it difficult to attract and retain skilled marketing professionals.

The impact of the shortage of adequately skilled workers:

The shortage of skilled workers gives rise to negative consequences for the Indian pharmaceutical industry, such as:

Reduced productivity: The shortage of skilled workers is leading to reduced productivity in the pharmaceutical industry. This is because unskilled workers may lack the knowledge and skills to perform tasks efficiently.

Increased costs: The shortage of skilled workers is also leading to increased costs in the pharmaceutical industry. This is because companies have to pay higher salaries to attract and retain skilled workers.

Quality problems: The shortage of skilled workers can also lead to quality problems in the pharmaceutical industry. This is because unskilled workers may not be able to follow GMP procedures correctly. Also, because unskilled marketing professionals may not be able to develop and implement effective marketing campaigns.

Compliance issues: The shortage of skilled workers can also lead to compliance issues in the pharmaceutical industry. This is because unskilled workers may not be aware of the regulations that apply to the industry or the consequences of their violations on patients and society.

What the industry is doing today:

Some steps, though not considered enough by many, are being taken by the Indian pharmaceutical industry to address the shortage of skilled workers. Here are some specific recent examples:

Establishing training institutes: The industry is establishing training institutes to provide training to workers in the pharmaceutical industry. For example, the Indian Drug Manufacturers’ Association (IDMA) has established the IDMA Skill Development Institute in Hyderabad. The institute offers courses in pharmaceutical manufacturing, quality control, and regulatory compliance.

Partnering with educational institutions: The industry is partnering with educational institutions to offer courses in pharmaceutical science and technology. For example, the Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA) has partnered with the National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (NIPER) to offer a diploma in pharmaceutical technology.

Promoting apprenticeships: The industry is promoting apprenticeships as a way to train workers in the pharmaceutical industry. For example, the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) has launched the Apprenticeship Training Scheme for the Pharmaceutical Industry. Under the scheme, apprentices are paid a stipend and receive on-the-job training from experienced professionals.

Offering scholarships and grants: The industry is offering scholarships and grants to students studying pharmaceutical science and technology. For example, the IPA has launched the IPA Scholarship Scheme for Women in Pharmaceutical Sciences. The scheme provides scholarships to female students studying pharmaceutical sciences at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels.

Emphasizing on continuous learning: The industry is emphasizing on continuous learning for its employees. For example, several pharmaceutical companies offer their employees training programs and workshops on new technologies and regulations.

Industry needs to work more closely with the government:

The Indian pharmaceutical industry needs to work more closely with the government to address the shortage of skilled workers. The areas could possibly include:

Increasing the number of training institutes
Providing financial assistance to students studying pharmaceutical sciences
Relaxing the eligibility criteria for apprenticeships
Recognizing the skills of workers trained in other countries

Where the government should take greater initiatives:

These areas may include the following:

Funding training programs
Partnering with educational institutions
Promoting apprenticeships

Conclusion:

The shortage of skilled workers is a major challenge for the pharmaceutical industry. However, the industry is taking steps to address the challenge. There isn’t an iota of doubt in the contemporary pharma business environment that rebalancing the skill sets required, especially for employees in pharma sales and marketing, is more imperative today than ever before. Thus, it is important for the industry to continue to take steps to bridge the skill gap by addressing the shortage of its skilled workforce. This is essential today to maintain India’s position in the global market, at least as the reliable pharmacy of the world.

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.

How Creative Is Pharma Industry?

Posted on April 15, 2019 by Tapan Ray

“Because the purpose of business is to create a customer, the business enterprise has two – and only two – basic functions: marketing and innovation. Marketing and innovation produce results; all the rest are costs. Marketing is the distinguishing, unique function of the business,” said the management guru of all times – Peter Drucker, decades ago. He further added, “The aim of marketing is to know and understand the customer, so well the product or service fits him and sells itself.” What needs to be underscored in this visionary articulation of Drucker is, effective marketing should create such a strong pull for a product or service that renders hard selling less relevant.

The word ‘innovation’ is used frequently within the pharma industry, and more by the multi-national players on a specific context. The purpose is mainly to douse stakeholder concern on high prices of innovative drugs – building a narrative around expensive, complex and time-intensive drug innovation process. That said, just as creativity is necessary to discover new drugs, creative minds also help in effectively reducing the cost of innovation – creating more customers for the company.

Curiously, in this debate the other key business function – ‘marketing’, often takes a back seat, with its usage getting generally restricted to product features and benefits, including ‘freebies’ of various kinds. Neither is there any palpable effort to make the culture of ‘creativity’ and ‘innovation’ prevail across the organization, for overcoming several critical growth barriers that keep looming over all functional areas.

Is it happening because of a hubris, as it were, within the pharma and biotech industry? This article will try to figure out why this has been happening over decades and would also ponder whether the time is ripe for changing the charted path of the business model. For a clear understanding of all, let me start with the difference between creativity and innovation from the business perspective.

Creativity – a fundamental requirement in a business, is different from innovation:

This was examined in the article titled, ‘The Importance of Creativity in Business,’ published by Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts, on November 09, 2017. It emphasized, although “creativity” and “innovation” are often used interchangeably, these are two separate concepts. “Creativity is different because it is a mechanism to being innovative. You can have great ideas, but not be innovative,” the paper underscored. It brought to the fore that ‘creativity’ – being the fundamental ingredient for being ‘innovative’, is essential in the highly competitive business environment. It fuels big ideas, challenges the employees’ way of thinking, and opens the door to new business opportunities.

The IBM study also confirms this fact:

The study titled, ‘‘Capitalizing on Complexity: Insights from the Global Chief Executive Officer Study,’ led by the IBM Institute for Business Value and IBM Strategy & Change, also confirmed the above fact. The study is the fourth edition of IBM’s biennial Global CEO Study series, involving more than 1,500 Chief Executive Officers from 60 countries and 33 industries worldwide.

The study reported, CEOs selected creativity as the most important leadership attribute and the number one factor for future business success. It added: ‘Creative leaders invite disruptive innovation, encourage others to drop outdated approaches and take balanced risks. They are open-minded and inventive in expanding their management and communication styles, particularly to engage with a new generation of employees, partners and customers.’ Importantly, ‘creativity’ ranked higher than rigor, management discipline, integrity or even vision, as each of these will require creativity. According to the study, successfully navigating through an increasing complex world of ‘accelerated industry transformation, growing volumes of data, rapidly evolving customer preferences, can be overcome by instilling ‘creativity’ throughout an organization.

‘Necessity is the mother of invention’ – does it apply to pharma, as well?

In today’s complex business environment, pharma’s business challenges are spreading rapidly across many areas. Besides innovation of new drugs, following are four broad, but critical areas, where fostering of creativity, innovative thinking and invention of game changing ideas, across the organization, I reckon, can fetch a sustainable return, in a win-win way:

Intense ‘pricing pressure’ to make innovative drugs affordable for greater access to patients: Just as innovative ideas are of fundamental importance to develop new drugs; disruptive innovative ideas in this area, can help resolve this issue, effectively – not any incremental measure.

Declining corporate image and eroding public trust: Placing patients’ interest at the center of the business model, and then effective marketing of the same, can reverse this trend, with better business outcomes.

Lack of business transparency: Make business processes, including pricing, sales and marketing more transparent, by leveraging the power of data with modern technology.

Declining per dollar marketing productivity: Move away from the old and traditional business models to find a new pathway for success, using the process of simulation, on an ongoing basis.

While above are some of the pressing needs for steering the course of pharma and biotech industry, the business keeps charting the same patch, with a bit of tweaking, here or there. Thus, the good old saying – ‘necessity is the mother of invention,’ still doesn’t work in pharma. The question, therefore, is why? We shall discuss it in just a bit. Before that, let me explore how creative the pharma industry, joining some critical dots.

How creative is pharma and biotech industry?

To explore this area, I shall try to touch upon the following two points:

Is there any perceptible financial impact on pharma sales revenue, net profit and gross operating margin, for not creatively resolving some critical growth barriers, as stated above?

Where does pharma and biotech industry stand in global ‘creativity ranking’?

For this purpose, when I look at the following four major areas, some interesting findings emerge:

Top 10 in sales revenue.
Top 10 in net profit
Average Gross and Operating Margin
Creativity ranking of some major pharma and biotech companies

Top 10 in sales revenue:

The overall sales revenue of the pharma/biotech companies remains healthy. On the face of it, there doesn’t seem to be any storm signal. According to Market Research Reports, Inc. the top 10 companies on 2018 sales revenue, are as follows:

Pfizer Inc.: USD 53.647 Billion
Novartis AG: USD 51.90 Billion
Roche Holding AG: USD 45.5896 Billion
Johnson & Johnson: USD 40.734 Billion
Sanofi S.A: USD 39.288 Billion
Merck & Co., Inc.: USD 37.689 Billion
AbbVie Inc.: USD 32.753 Billion
Amgen: USD 23.7 Billion
GSK: USD 22.968 Billion
Bristol-Myers Squibb: USD 22.600 Billion

Top 10 in net profit:

There isn’t any storm signal visible in this area, either, as it is seen in isolation. According to Statista, the 2018 ranking of the top 10 biotech and pharmaceutical companies worldwide, based on net income, as appeared in the Financial Times 2018 equity screener database, is as follows:

Rank	Company	Net income ($ Billion)
1.	Johnson & Johnson (USA)	15
2.	Novartis (Switzerland)	13.8
3.	Pfizer (USA)	11.9
4.	Roche (Switzerland)	10.5
5.	Amgen (USA)	8.5
6.	Gilead (USA)	7.7
7.	AbbVie USA)	6.8
8.	Novo Nordisk (Denmark)	6.0
9.	Bayer (Germany)	4.3
10.	Biogen (USA)	4.1

Let’s now look at the average gross and operating margin in the pharma and biotech industry.

Average Gross and operating Margin – still the best:

This also looks healthy, as compared to others. According to the January 2018 study by New York University’s Stern School of Business, average gross margin of 481 biotech and 237 pharma and biotech companies was reported at 70.71 percent and 68.60 percent, respectively. And their operating margins were at 25.45 percent and 24.89 percent, severally – against 12.32 percent of all the 7209 companies surveyed.

Creativity ranking of some commonly known pharma and biotech companies:

Here there seems to be an issue. When I look at the 2018 Forbes list of ‘The World’s Most Innovative Companies,’ it will be challenging to find any of the above top names of the pharma and biotech companies within the Top 100 ranking. Just to illustrate the point, let me reproduce below some commonly known names of our industry:

Rank	Company	Country	12-month sales growth%	Innovation Premium%
#7.	Incyte	USA	38.93	70.59
#14.	Celltrion	S. Korea	45.25	62.3
#16.	Regeneron Pharmaceuticals	USA	20.82	61.11
#17.	Vertex Pharmaceuticals	USA	46.2	60.93
#22.	Alexion Pharmaceuticals	USA	17.32	58.04
#82.	Allergan	Ireland	9.4	37.59

Some interesting possibilities:

The above data, points towards some interesting possibilities:

Because of its sales and profit margin remaining generally lucrative, the focus on innovation of most pharma and biotech companies, get restricted to new drug discovery and development processes.

Top management’s encouragement of creativity across all functions of the organization appears inadequate, to successfully navigate through the key growth barriers, to maintain future business sustainability.

But, some critical signals do indicate: ‘shape up or ship out’:

But the real picture isn’t as rosy. Analysis of some key trends does capture several critical storm signals for the industry According to the July 09, 2018 study of EY (Ernst and Young): ‘Margins of pharmaceutical companies are continuing to decline – the future lies in new ecosystems.’ It further indicated: Although the margins of the 21 largest pharmaceutical companies in the world are declining, the businesses ‘are still growing, thanks to blockbuster drugs and new active ingredients against cancer. 40 per cent of the active ingredients that are currently being developed worldwide are cancer drugs.’

The paper concluded, the future lies in designing completely new types of ecosystems and business models. With the aim of providing comprehensive support for healthcare customers, including patients. “Data-driven business models will permanently change the pharmaceutical industry,” the paper articulated. The study forecasted, ‘life Science startups will take over between 30 and 45 per cent of the market by 2030.’ Isn’t this a clear signal, especially for large and longtime pharma players to ‘shape up or ship out?’

Conclusion:

Let me now revert to what Peter Drucker said on two basic functions of a business – Innovation and Marking. None can question pharma on its consistently bringing to market innovative drugs to effectively tackle many diseases, including complex and life-threatening ones. Given, that ongoing new drug development is the lifeblood of growth of pharma business. Nevertheless, that aspect of innovation is mostly perceived as an exclusive internal business value for most companies. The majority of stakeholders perceives the value of drug innovation as inclusive, when it is made accessible to a large population of patients at an affordable price, along with a decent Return on Investment (ROI) for the corporation. This expectation cannot be wished away. Instead, its core concept should drive the other basic function of business – marketing

This stage can be attained by building an innovative organization, fostering the culture and process of ‘creativity’ – across its functions. It is now a fundamental requirement for pharma and biotech companies. Beyond new product development, innovation immensely helps organizations navigating through strong headwinds to achieve its financial goals and objectives, in an inclusive manner. When IT – another knowledge industry, can reduce the cost of innovation through creative processes, across all functions, making its product and services affordable to a large population, e.g. Reliance Jio, why not Pharma? In that sense, I reckon, pharma and biotech companies are yet to become creative – in a holistic way.

By: Tapan J. Ray

An Interesting Link: Productivity At Work And Employee Fitness (Part 2)

Posted on April 23, 2018 by Tapan Ray

Part 2: Mental Fitness

As I wrote in my previous article, the complex multi-factorial work-life challenges in today’s Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous (VUCA)) world are virtually unprecedented.

Interestingly, a sizeable part of such challenge is related to a wide variety of internal organizational factors. These often include changes at the senior management level or in the key corporate policies, or the likes. More often, the changing aspirations and outlook of both the younger and even the aging professionals, in the midst of newer complexities of life – not well-understood by the management, invite such a situation.

Taking note of the influencing factors:

Meeting challenges of some of these disruptive changes, many companies are working on the respective influencing factors in various critical areas.

According to an article, titled “Meeting the Challenge of Disruptive Change”, published by the Harvard Business Review (HBR) in its March-April 2000 issue writes: “Our research suggests that three factors affect what an organization can and cannot do: its resources, its processes, and its values.” It then elaborates by saying that the second factor – processes, also means what the company leadership uses to transform resources into products and services of greater worth.

These processes, I reckon, encompass the effective use of various ‘employee engagement’ programs. As a part of which, employee fitness programs are now being encouraged at the corporate level, seriously. I have discussed in my previous article, the ‘Physical Fitness’ aspect of improving employee productivity at work. in this article, I shall dwell on improving the ‘Mental Fitness’ facet of the same.

The area deserving greater attention:

Curiously, not as much attention and care are being taken towards ensuring a robust ‘mental fitness’ level of employees, which is as important, if not more, to achieve the same corporate objectives. A right combination of sharper mind and a healthier body will rather have a synergistic effect in this regard.

Recent data:

The January 18, 2018 article titled, “Now Is The Time For Wellbeing Programs To Focus On Mental Health,” published by the Forbes Magazine presented some interesting facts.

It wrote, employers are increasingly taking greater interest in employee wellbeing. In 2017, the average employer in the United States spent around USD 693 per employee on well-being initiatives per year. This figure is rising around USD100 per year, the author said.

However, the majority of such investment were towards physical health activities, such as installation of gym facilities on site, or giving employees fitness trackers to monitor activity levels. It was less clear, though, whether similar investment extends into mental health programs, as well.

Mental health issues at work higher than physical health conditions:

The October 2017 study titled “Thriving at work“ highlighted that the United Kingdom faces a significant mental health challenge at work. While there are more people at work with mental health conditions than ever before, 300,000 people with a long term mental health problem lose their jobs each year, and at a much higher rate than those with physical health conditions.

Another article appeared in the Indian Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine also observed that mental health problems have an impact on employers and businesses directly through negative impact on productivity and profits, as well as an increase in costs to deal with the issue. In addition, they impact employee morale adversely.

Mental health – the Indian scenario:

The World Health Organization recognizes that the impact of mental health problems in the workplace has serious consequences not only for the individual, but also for the productivity of the enterprise, including the developing countries, such as India.

For the country, the National Mental Health Survey 2015-16 also reveals that nearly 15 percent Indian adults need active intervention for one or more mental health issues and one in 20 Indians suffers from depression. Noting this ascending trend in the prevalence of mental disorders, workplace mental health is an essential need for the Indian Corporates to respond to, urgently.

Alongside, a 2016 study by Optum – a leading employee assistance program to many Corporates, with a sample size of 200,000 employees and covering over 30 large employers, unveiled a seemingly astonishing fact. It reported, as high as 46 percent of the workforce in India suffers from some form of stress. The same issue is applicable to the Government employees in India.

Intriguingly, its budgetary allocation to the National Program for Mental Health has been stagnant for the past three years. At ₹ 35 crore, the program, reportedly, received 0.07 percent of India’s 2017-18 health budget.

Mental health continues to be a taboo:

The ‘Thriving at work’ report further said: “Behind this, our analysis shows that around 15% of people at work have symptoms of an existing mental health condition.” “We found that in many workplaces, mental health is still a taboo subject and that opportunities are missed to prevent poor mental health and ensure employees who may be struggling to get the support they need. In many instances, employers simply don’t understand the crucial role they can play, or know where to go for advice and support,” the paper underscored.

As the above Forbes study said, it could also be due to the fact that a large number of employees believe their mental health problems are not affecting their work, so there was no need to tell their boss.

Focus only on merit, ignoring mental health may have a shorter life:

As we see around, many organizations, including large pharma players in India, are increasingly following different systems of recognizing merit to boost employee productivity. One of its visible manifestations gets reflected in the corporate policy of ‘pay for performance’. It fundamentally means: ‘exceed goals to earn more.’ This by all means is one of the very effective tools of not just achieving business excellence, but in fostering a sense of competition within the performers, besides good corporate governance. In this context, a question often raised is: Does focusing only merit, sans adequate mental health, carry a shorter life for improving employee productivity?

Conclusion:

This process of recognizing merits, focuses mostly on boosting employee productivity, and very rarely on meeting their mental needs, wants, aspirations and outlook. As a result of this single minded corporate focus on professional merits alone, work-stress starts creating additional pressure, over and above the employees’ own family, social and other personal stress factors. It often leads to job burnout – slowly shifting the work productivity in the reverse gear, alongside an adverse impact on the quality of life of individuals.

There are instances when the employees resort to unwanted shortcuts, snowballing the situation, but only when these get detected. There are ample such evidences in the Indian pharma industry, as well. Several global pharma majors, such as GSK have taken some measures in this area. Nonetheless, it needs to go beyond what a large number of these companies display on their wellness initiatives for employees, in the respective websites.

I hope, this well-proven interesting link between employee productivity at work and their mental well-being, will be noted by more and more Indian companies, especially in the pharma sector. This may prompt them to look for a win-win blend between corporate excellence, employees’ merit-based performance and their fitness needs – both physical and mental. That’s, I reckon, is the minimal corporate requirement today, in this area. Once in place, it will keep evolving at a rapid pace, with the collective cerebral inputs of the respective organizations.

By: Tapan J. Ray

An Interesting Link: Productivity At Work and Employee Fitness (In 2 Parts)

Posted on April 16, 2018 by Tapan Ray

Part 1: Physical Fitness

Today’s work environment is much more challenging than ever before. The challenge is undoubtedly multi-factorial. Many of these are external – mostly related to increasing complex, and difficult to fathom uncertainties and surprises in the overall business environment. Nevertheless, its sizeable part keeps generating from within the respective organizations.

These emanate from a wide variety factors, such as changes at the senior management levels or in the key corporate policies of an organization. But more importantly, changing aspirations and outlook of the new generation professionals, in the midst of all complexities of life, often play a catalytic role.

Managing changes in VUCA world:

The Corporate leadership of more and more business organizations, including pharma is fast realizing a hard fact. They are discerning, if the internal challenges are addressed with a systematic short, medium and long-term approaches, it would be possible to navigate through, with a greater degree of success than otherwise, in this Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous (VUCA)) world.

Scientific evidence suggests, encouraging employee fitness in this situation with a comprehensive plan, could considerably help boosting employee productivity to effectively respond to business challenges. I shall discuss this emerging scenario in two successive articles. The Part 1 will dwell on the impact of ‘Physical Fitness’ on employee productivity, and the Part 2 will argue on the relevance of ‘Mental Fitness” in achieving the same.

Working on ‘employee engagement’, including fitness:

To successfully cruise through this tough headwind, many corporate houses are working hard on various ‘employee engagement’ initiatives, to excel in creating the best possible ‘shareholder value’. These cover various hard and soft skills imparted through regular training sessions, in tandem with actively encouraging employee fitness programs at the corporate level, seriously.

There are plenty of reasons for doing so. For example, by keeping the employees away from various non-infectious chronic (NCDs) such as hypertension, diabetes, or enabling them to manage these conditions better, through fitness initiatives, the employers derive some very tangible benefits, as well. These come, over and above offering a sense of wellness to employees – in terms of improvement of per employee productivity.

Proven benefits of fitness initiatives now visible across the world:

To achieve this goal, increasing number of corporate houses around the world of all sizes, are ensuring employee fitness by providing facilities of exercise, even in the workplace.

A Brookings Institute study, titled, ‘Exercise Increases Productivity’ found that ‘regular exercise at work helps increase employees’ happiness and overall productivity in the workplace.’ In a randomized controlled trial, researchers from the University of Georgia concluded that even low to moderate daily exercise can make employees feel more energized within a few weeks. Whereas, the effect of exercise on the mood is immediate.

Another research article, published in the American Journal of Management indicated: ‘If fitness could be increased through some type of fitness program, there would be a noticeable increase in productivity.’

Yet another research publication on the subject commented: “There are clear implications not only for employee wellbeing, but also for competitive advantage and motivation by increasing opportunities for exercising at work.”

Fitness also impacts the way one thinks:

Stating that: ‘Exercise has also been shown to elevate mood, which has serious implications for workplace performance,” the article titled “Regular Exercise Is Part of Your Job”, published by the Harvard Business Review (HBR) on October 03, 2014 discussed another interesting point.

It wrote, when we think about the value of exercise, we tend to focus on the physical benefits, such as lower blood pressure, a healthier heart, a more attractive physique. Besides this fact, there are other compelling evidence suggesting that there is another, more immediate benefit of regular exercise: its impact on the way we think.

Elaborating the point, the author said: Studies indicate that our mental firepower is directly linked to our physical regimen. And nowhere are the implications more relevant than our performance at work, providing the following cognitive benefits into an employee routine at the work place:

Improved concentration
Sharper memory
Faster learning
Prolonged mental stamina
Enhanced creativity
Lower stress

In line with the Brooking Institute study, this article also reiterates that exercise has shown to elevate mood, which has serious implications for workplace performance. On the other hand, feeling irritable is not just an inconvenience. It can directly influence the degree to which one is successful.

Even the results of the Leeds Metropolitan University study show that exercise during regular work hours may boost performance. It also found: “On days when employees visited the gym, their experience at work changed. They reported managing their time more effectively, being more productive, and having smoother interactions with their colleagues. Just as important: They went home feeling more satisfied at the end of the day.”

The most common barrier:

What prevents us from exercising more often? The most common answer to this important question would probably be: ‘I don’t have the time.’ This answer could well be quite legitimate too. However, it also means that fitness programs still assume a low priority to many, despite its scientifically proven work and personal benefits, as the studies indicate.

Conclusion:

Various research studies, including the HBR article, have concluded that the cognitive benefits of exercise resulting significant improvement in employee productivity, can’t be wished away, any longer. Which is why the research studies establishing the importance of employee fitness to boost their productivity in the workplace, are so compelling.

There is hardly any scope of doubt now that: “Exercise enables us to soak in more information, work more efficiently, and be more productive.”

This scientifically proven narrative now deserves to be practiced at a much wider scale by Indian business organizations. As an effective tool to boost employee productivity, they may wish to increasingly encourage fitness programs at the workplace. Not very strange, though, corporate physical fitness centers – on-site or outsourced, are not too common, just yet, perhaps more within the Indian pharma industry.

When actively encouraged by, particularly the pharma leadership in India, a significant value addition may take place on their ongoing initiatives for improving the much-sought after employee productivity in the workplace, in a win-win way.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Making New Cancer Drugs Cost-effective

Posted on April 17, 2017 by Tapan Ray

The prices of new cancer drugs are increasingly becoming unsustainable across the world, and more so in India. A sizable number of poor and even middle-income patients, who spend their entire life’s savings for the treatment of this dreaded disease, is pushed towards extreme economic hardship. Their plight in India would continue to remain so, till Universal Health Care (UHC) comes into force, as enunciated in the National Health Policy 2017.

Thus, the delivery of affordable and equitable cancer care poses one of India’s greatest public health challenges. Public expenditure on cancer in India remains below US$ 10 per person, as compared with more than US$ 100 per person in high-income countries. The May 2014 paper, published in ‘The Lancet Oncology’, analyzed this concern in detail.

In this article, after giving a brief backdrop, I shall explore a possible alternative to make cancer treatment with new drugs affordable to many by scaling up this strategic option.

Cancer – the second leading cause of death:

According to the World Health Organization (W.H.O), cancer is the second leading cause of death globally and accounted for 8.8 million deaths in 2015. This works out to nearly 1 in 6 of all global deaths, with US$ 1.16 trillion being the estimated total annual economic cost of cancer in 2010. Lung, prostate, colorectal, stomach and liver cancer are the most common types of cancer in men, while breast, colorectal, lung, cervix and stomach cancer are the most common among women. To reduce significant disability, suffering and deaths caused by cancer worldwide, effective and affordable programs in early diagnosis, screening, treatment, and palliative care are needed. Treatment options may include surgery, medicines and/or radiotherapy – the report reiterates. In many instances, anti-cancer drugs are the mainstay treatment.

For the country, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) reported over 736, 000 people succumbing to the disease in 2016. This figure is expected to shoot up to 880,000 by 2020. ICMR estimated the total number of new cancer cases at around 1.45 million in 2016, and the same is likely to reach 1.73 million by 2020. The situation in this area, therefore, rather grim across the world, including India.

Cancer treatment cost in India is one of the highest in the world:

Anticancer drugs are generally expensive. As stated in a related article, published in the Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology on March 14, 2017, in the United States, a novel anticancer drug routinely costs more than US$ 100,000 per year of treatment. When adjusted for per capita spending power, these lifesaving medicines become most unaffordable in economically developing nations, such as India and China. Not only are their launch prices high and fast rising, but these also often escalate during the respective patent exclusivity period.

That in terms of the ability to pay for drugs, cancer drugs are most affordable in Australia and least affordable in India and China, was established in one of the largest research study presented at the 2016 Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Moreover, even in those cases where cancer could be detected early, about half the patients in India are compelled to skip the treatment for high drug cost, highlights another article.

Interestingly, the concerned drug manufacturers seldom, if at all, justify such astronomical drug prices and subsequent price increases well supported by some rational factors, such as, the extent of benefit patients are likely to derive, the novelty of the agents, or detailed spending on research and development, the above paper states.

The increasing trend of price escalation of cancer drugs harms many patients, often directly, through increased out-of-pocket expenses, which reduce levels of patient compliance, or drive thousands of cancer patients skipping the drug treatment, altogether. Consequently, it also harms the society by imposing cumulative price burdens on many patients that are unsustainable.

Despite high cost, annual global spending on anticancer drugs has already exceeded US$100 billion, and is predicted to reach US$150 billion by 2020. In India too, oncology is a leading therapeutic segment, which reached a turnover of Rs. 2,000 Crore (around US$ 320 million) in 2013 and is expected to grow to Rs. 3,831 crore (around US$ 615 million) by the end of 2017, according to a report of Frost and Sullivan.

The reason for high drug price:

The real reason for the high cost of cancer drugs, just as many other life-saving medicines, is quite challenging to fathom. Many attribute its reason to unsustainable R&D models of the global pharma companies, in general.

For example, “the spiraling cost of new drugs mandates a fundamentally different approach to keep lifesaving therapies affordable for cancer patients” – argued an article titled, “How Much Longer Will We Put Up With US$ 100,000 Cancer Drugs?”, published by Elsevier Inc. In the same context, another article titled “Making Cancer Treatment More Affordable”, published in the ‘Rare Disease Report’ on Feb 09, 2017, reiterated that the current R&D model needs to change, as the cost of many such treatments is higher than the cost of an average person’s house in the United States.

Nonetheless, the drug manufacturers answer this difficult question with ease and promptness, citing that the cost of innovation to bring these drugs through a complex research and development (R&D) process to the market, isn’t just very high, but is also increasing at a rapid pace.

Pharma R&D cost:

An analysis by the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, published in the Journal of Health Economics in March, 2016 pegged the average cost to develop and gain marketing approval for a new drug at US$ 2.558 billion. It also said that the total cost of innovation of a new drug and bringing it to market, has increased more than double from US$ 1.22 billion in 2003 to US$ 2.6 billion in 2014. Although these numbers are being vehemently challenged in several credible journals and by the international media, many global pharma majors justify the high new drug prices

by highlighting that developing a new molecule takes an enormous amount of time of 12 to 14 years, lots of financial resources and huge efforts.

On the other hand, an article titled, “Does it really cost US$ 2.6 billion to develop a new drug?”, published in The Washington Post on November 18, 2014 observed that: ‘The never-ending debate about what drugs should cost is in part driven by the fact that no one seems to know what it actually costs to develop one.”

But, why is the decline in the R&D productivity trend?

According to a 2014 review article titled, “Recent Advances in Drug Repositioning for the Discovery of New Anticancer Drugs”, published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences, while the total R&D expenditure for drug discovery worldwide increased 10 times since 1975 (US$ 4 billion) to 2009 (US$ 40 billion), the number of NMEs approved has remained largely flat (26 new drugs approved in 1976 and 27 new drugs approved in 2013). The average time required for drug discovery to market launch has also increased over time in the US and in the EU countries from 9.7 years during 1990s, to 13.9 years from 2000 onwards.

Be that as it may, the bottom-line is regardless of tremendous advancement in biological science, technology and analytics, especially in the new millennium, coupled with increasing investments in pharma R&D, the total number of NMEs that has reached the market hasn’t shown commensurate increase.

One of my articles published in this blog titled, “How Expensive Is Drug Innovation?” found an echo of the same in a globally reputed journal. This study, published by the BMJ on May 2016, titled “Propaganda or the cost of innovation? Challenging the high price of new drugs”, expressed deep concern on the rising prices of new medicines. It reiterated that this trend is set to overwhelm health systems around the world.

Need for an alternative R&D strategy:

The hurdles in discovering and developing new drugs call for alternative approaches, particularly for life threatening diseases, such as cancer. I reckon, it’s about time to scale-up a viable alternative strategy to bring down the R&D cost of new drugs, improve the success rate of clinical development, reduce a decade long ‘mind to market’ timeframe for an innovative drug or a treatment, and of course, the mind blogging cost of the entire process, as asserted in the above report from the Tufts Center.

One such alternative strategy could well be: ‘Drug Repurposing’

Drug Repurposing:

As defined by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, ‘drug repurposing’ “generally refers to studying drugs that are already approved to treat one disease or condition to see if they are safe and effective for treating other diseases”.

As many molecules, with well-documented records on their pharmacology and toxicity profile, have been already formulated and undergone large clinical trials on humans, repurposing those drugs building upon the available documents and experiences for fresh clinical trials in different disease conditions, would hasten the regulatory review process for marketing approval, and at a much lesser cost.

I shall quote here just two such examples of ‘drug repurposing’ from well-known molecules, as follows:

Sildenafil (Viagra): The blockbuster drug that was launched by Pfizer in 1998 for the treatment of erectile dysfunctions was originally developed for the treatment of coronary artery disease by the same company in 1980s.

Thalidomide: Originally designed and developed by a German pharmaceutical company called Grünenthal in Stolberg as a treatment for morning sickness in 1957, but was withdrawn in 1961 from the market because it caused birth defects. The same molecule was reintroduced in 1998 as a ‘repurposed drug’ to effectively treat patients with erythema nodosum leprosum (ENL) – a complication of leprosy, and multiple myeloma – a type of cancer.

I had given many more examples of ‘drug repurposing’ in one of my earlier articles published in this blog.

Repurposing drugs for cancer:

The above-mentioned review article of International Journal of Biological Sciences 2014 clearly noted: “Drug repositioning has attracted particular attention from the communities engaged in anticancer drug discovery due to the combination of great demand for new anticancer drugs and the availability of a wide variety of cell and target-based screening assays. With the successful clinical introduction of a number of non-cancer drugs for cancer treatment, ‘drug repurposing’ now became a powerful alternative strategy to discover and develop novel anticancer drug candidates from the existing drug space.”

The following are some recent successful examples of ‘drug repurposing’ for anticancer drug discovery from non-cancer drugs, which are mostly under Phase I to II clinical trials:

Drug	Original treatment	Clinical status for cancer treatment
Itraconazole	Fungal infections	Phase I and II
Nelfinavir	HIV infections	Phase I and II
Digoxin	Cardiac diseases	Phase I and II
Nitroxoline	Urinary Tract Infections	Preclinical
Riluzole	Amyotropic lateral sclerosis	Phase I and II
Disulfram	Chronic alcoholism	Phase I and II

‘Drug repurposing’ market:

A January 2016 report by BCC Research estimates that the global market for drug repurposing will grow from nearly US$ 24.4 billion in 2015 to nearly US$ 31.3 billion by 2020, with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5.1 percent for the period of 2015-2020.

Expressing concern just not enough:

There are enough examples available across the world regarding stakeholders’ expression of great concern on this issue, with the buzz of such protests getting progressively shriller.

However, in India, high prices of cancer drugs do not seem to be a great issue with the medical profession, just yet, notwithstanding some sporadic steps taken by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) to allay the economic burden of cancer patients to some extent. Encouragingly, 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 cancer drugs. Their solution for this problem includes value-based pricing and NICE like body of the United Kingdom. An interesting video clip from Mayo Clinic justifies the argument.

All this can at best be epitomized as so far so good, and may help increase the public awareness level on this subject. However, the moot point remains: Has anything significantly changed on the ground, on a permanent basis, by mere expression of such concerns?

Conclusion:

This discussion may provoke many to go back to the square number one, making the ongoing raging debate on Innovation, Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and Public Health Interest to gather more steam, but the core concern continues to remain unresolved.

I hasten to add that all such concerns, including strong protests, may no doubt create some temporary pressure on drug manufacturers, but they are experienced enough to navigate through such issues, as they have been doing, so far. However, for making new cancer drugs cost-effective for a vast population of patients, coming out of the current strategic mold of pharma research and development would be necessary. Grant of Compulsory License (CL), or the expectation of the local drug manufacturers for a Voluntary License (VL) of new cancer drugs, can’t be a routine process either, as it appears unrealistic to me, for various reasons.

I have discussed in this article just one alternative R&D strategy in this area, and that is Drug Repurposing (DR). There could be several others. DR is reportedly gaining increasing focus, as it represents a smart way to exploit new molecular targets of a known non-oncological drug for a new therapeutic applications in oncology. Be that as it may, pharma companies and the academia must agree to sail on the same boat together having a common goal to make new cancer drugs cost-effective for majority of cancer patients struggling hard, for life.

I would conclude this article quoting the President and Chief Science Officer of Illinois-based Cures Within Reach who said: “What I like about drug repurposing is that it can solve two issues: improved health-care impact and reduced health-care cost – That’s a big driver for us.”

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 R&D: Chasing A Rainbow To Replicate The Past

Posted on January 25, 2016 by Tapan Ray

Would future be always a replica of the past?

If the response is yes, the efforts of many global pharma players to replicate the successful Research and Development (R&D) models of long gone by days, would continue to be a grand success. The new drug pipeline would remain rich and sustainable. R&D costs would be increasingly more productive, with the rapid and more frequent churning out of blockbuster drugs, in various therapy areas.

However, an affirmative response to this question, if any, has to be necessarily supported by relevant credible data from independent sources.

Additionally, yet another equally critical query would surface. Why then the prices of newer innovative drugs have started going through the roof, with the rapid escalation of R&D expenses?

Thus, there is a need to ponder whether the continued hard effort by many large innovator companies in this direction is yielding the desired results or not.

In this article, I shall try to dwell on this issue with the most recent data available with us.

A new research report:

A new research report of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions titled, “Measuring the return from pharmaceutical innovation 2015: Transforming R&D returns in uncertain times” states that the R&D returns of major life sciences industry groups have fallen to their lowest point in 2015, since 2010. The report tracked and reviewed the estimated returns of 12 leading global life sciences companies.

Some of the data presented in this report would give an idea about the magnitude of current challenges in this space. Nevertheless, there could be a few rare and sporadic green shoots, which can also be cited to claim a revival in this area.

I am quoting below some key pharma R&D trends, for the period starting from 2010 to 2015, as illustrated in the Deloitte report:

A. Declining R&D productivity:

Year	R&D return (%)
2010	10.1
2011	7.6
2012	7.3
2013	4.8
2014	5.5
2015	4.2

B. Increasing drug development cost with decreasing estimated sales:

During 2010 to 2015 period, the average peak sales estimate per drug has fallen by 50 percent from US$ 816 million to US$416 million per year, while the development costs per drug, during the same period increased by 33 percent, from US$ 1.188 billion to US$ 1.576 billion.

C. Smaller Companies showing better R&D productivity:

Between 2013-2015, relatively smaller companies showed better R&D productivity as follows:

Big companies: 5 percent
Mid to large cap companies: 17 percent

D. External innovation becoming increasingly more important:

Again, mid to large cap companies opting for more external innovation are showing a higher proportion of late stage pipeline value, as below:

Big companies: 54 percent
Mid to large cap companies: 79 percent

A fear of failure?

The Deloitte report throws some light on the general stakeholders’ concerns about the exorbitantly high price fixation for innovative new drugs by the concerned companies, together with consequential macroeconomic pressures.

One of the key suggestions made in this report, is to increase the focus on reduction of R&D costs, while accelerating the new drug development timelines. I shall broach upon this point briefly just in a short while.

However, the stark reality today, the hard efforts still being made by many large global drug companies to almost replicate the old paradigm of highly productive pharma R&D, though with some tweaking here or there, are not yielding expected results. The return on R&D investments is sharply going south, as the new drug prices rocketing towards north.

Is it happening due to a paralyzing fear of failure, that moving out of the known and the traditional sphere of the new drug discovery models could impact the stock markets adversely, making the concerned CEOs operational environment too hot to bear?

Be that as it may, without venturing into the uncharted frontiers of the new drug discovery models, would it at all be possible to bring out such drugs at a reasonable affordable price to the patients, ever?

I have deliberated before, in this blog, some of the possible eclectic ways in this area, including in one of my very recent articles on January 4, 2016 titled, “2015: Pharma Industry Achieved Some, Could Achieve Some More”.

New innovative drugs evaluated over priced:

Here, I would not quote the prices of Sovaldi and its ilk, which are known to many. I intend to give examples of just two other new drugs that have triggered significant interest as potential advances for the care of patients in two common disease areas, namely, asthma and diabetes. These two drugs are GlaxoSmithKline’s Nucala® (Mepolizumab) for Asthma and Novo Nordisk’s Tresiba® (Insulin Degludec) for Diabetes.

According a December 21, 2015 report of the ‘Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER)’ of the United States:

“The annual price of mepolizumab would need to be discounted 63-76% to be better aligned with value to patients and the health system, while insulin degludec would need to be discounted less than 10% to do so.”

Thus, there has been a growing mismatch between the value that new innovative drugs, in general, offers to the patients and the price that the innovator companies fix for such drugs. This trend, if continues, would significantly limit patients’ access to new drugs, as the pharma players keep chasing disproportionately high profitability to increase their shareholder value.

External sourcing of R&D may not make new drugs affordable:

Taking a cue from the highly successful strategy of Gilead, especially what it has done with Sovaldi and Harvoni, if other major global pharma players’ also try to enrich their late stage new drug molecule pipeline from external sources, would that effectively resolve the core issue?

In my view, this could possibly be one of the ways to contain R&D expenses and with much lesser risk, as suggested in the Deloitte report. However, I doubt, whether the same would effectively help bringing down the prices of newer innovative drugs, in tandem.

This is primarily because of the following contemporary example, that we now have with us.

Although the active compound that is used to manufacture Sovaldi, or for that matter even Harvoni, is not Gilead’s in-house discovery, the prices of these drugs have already gone through the roof.

It is altogether a different matter that robust patent laws along with the Government vigilance on obnoxious drug pricing is gradually increasing in various countries. Some developed and developing markets of the world, including the Unites States and the United Kingdom, either already have or are now mulling for an effective counter check to irresponsible drug pricing, primarily by putting the ‘innovation’ bogey right at the very front.

In India, prompted by its robust patent law and to avoid any possibility of Compulsory Licensing (CL), Gilead ultimately decided to give Voluntary Licenses (CL) for Sovaldi to several Indian drug companies. These pharma players will manufacture the drug in India and market it in the country at a much lesser price.

A new cooperative effort for cancer drugs:

On January 11 2016, ‘The New York Times’ reported the formation of ‘National Immunotherapy Coalition (NIC)’. This is a cooperative effort by some leading global pharma companies to speed up the testing of new types of cancer drugs that harness the body’s immune system to battle tumors. The NIC will try to rapidly test various combinations of such drugs.

This is important, as many researchers believe that combinations of two or more drugs that engage different parts of the immune system might be effective for more patients than a single drug.

On the face of it, this initiative appears to be a step in the right direction and could make the cancer drugs more affordable to patients. However, only future will tell us whether it happens that way or not.

Conclusion:

Nevertheless, the bottom line is, to make the new innovative drugs available at an affordable price to patients, along with strict vigilance by the government bodies, the old and a traditional ball game of drug discovery has to change.

This would necessarily require fresh eyes, inquiring minds and high IQ brains that can bring forth at least significant eclectic changes, if not a disruptive innovation, in the new drug discovery and development process, across the world.

Otherwise, and especially when the low-hanging fruits of drug discovery have already been plucked, if the major global pharma players continue striving to replicate the grand old path of new drug discovery, the efforts could very likely be, and quite akin to, chasing a rainbow.

By: Tapan J. Ray

‘e-detailing’: The Future of Pharmaceutical Sales?

Posted on September 30, 2013 by Tapan Ray

Pharmaceutical product detailing to doctors by Medical Representatives (MRs) is believed to fetch the single largest return on marketing investments by the pharmaceutical companies globally, as on date.

At the same time, the pharma players, across the world, are increasingly experiencing that the costs of product detailing by the MRs to the doctors are not now quite commensurate to the desired return in terms of financial results, despite bringing in many new skills and other productivity improvement measures on a regular basis.

Thus, to make such interaction between the MRs and the doctors more productive and cost efficient, increasingly the global pharmaceutical industry has been exploring various models and methods with numerous state-of-art digital Internet based applications. Some pharmaceutical companies, especially, from the western world, have already started putting such innovation into practice.

Waning productivity of traditional detailing:

This is quite apparent now that due to changing market dynamics and increasingly busy schedules of the doctors, the productivity of traditional product detailing is fast waning. As a result, pharmaceutical companies are encountering huge challenges in the process of generating prescription demand for their respective products by taking commensurate share of mind of the Physicians.

This is mainly because, the number of patients is also now fast increasing and the doctors are trying to see these large numbers of patients within their limited available time. As a result each patient is getting lesser doctors’ time, while the doctors are trying to provide optimal patient care in each patient visit. At the same time, other obligations of various kinds also overcrowd physicians’ time.

As a result, increasing number of MRs, which has almost double in the past decade, is now fiercely competing to get a share of lesser and lesser available time of the doctors. Added to this, increasing inflow of new doctors not being in line with the increasing inflow of patients is making the situation even worse.

As stated earlier, significant expenditure that the pharma companies have been incurring towards product detailing, many of them feel, is not resulting into desired top and bottom line growth for the organization, any more. Even good numbers of important specialist doctors do not seem to value this traditional MR product detailing process any longer, mainly due to immense time pressure on them and also due to their easy access to other modern product information gathering tools.

What is happening today:

Today, keeping the core concept of traditional detailing unchanged a few, especially large pharmaceutical companies in India, have introduced a number of digital interventions to eliminate some important manual processes that MRs used to follow earlier like, call planning, access to other relevant information electronically, instant reporting etc.

Such incremental improvements in the traditional detailing model, though helpful to the MRs, do not seem to be just good enough to produce desired business results in today’s highly competitive environment. The time calls for radical technological interventions.

A new report on the trend:

According to a new study of CMI Communication Media research report, about half of physicians restrict visits from MRs in one way or another.

It reported, just half of cancer specialists (oncologists) saying that they would interact about new products with MRs, while 47% of them indicated email as a preference.

Surveys found the oncologists being the most restrictive specialists, with only 19% allowing MRs without restrictions. On the other hand, 20% of them would not see MRs at all, with the 40% in the middle either requiring appointments or limiting visits to particular hours of the day or week.

‘e-Detailing’:

The well known consulting company Mckinsey & Company in a paper titled, ‘Making sense of e-detailing in Japan’s pharmaceutical sector’ has defined e-detailing as follows:

“e-detailing or electronic detailing refers to interacting with physicians virtually rather than physically. It often takes place through a company’s own website or through a physician portal coupled with email- driven promotions and attached explanatory videos offering up-to-date pharmaceutical product information.”

Thus, in ‘e-detailing’ Internet-based communications applications are used to provide customized services to the doctors, in many times to complement the activities of MRs.

‘e-detailing’ is now evolving as a modern technological innovation in the field of communication between MRs and doctors. It is intended to be highly customized, very interactive, more effective, quite flexible and at the same cost-efficient too. Live analytics that ‘e-detailing’ would provide instantly could be of immense use in the strategizing process of pharmaceutical marketing.

Cost effectiveness of ‘e-detailing’:

In the same paper, as mentioned above, to highlight the cost advantages of ‘e-detailing’, McKinsey & company, from its Japan experience, has reported as follows:

“While accurate, apples-to-apples data is hard to come by, we estimate each e-detail costs between 500 and 750 Yen, depending on the scope  of audience and the sophistication  of content. An MR costs 7,000 Yen  to 12,000 Yen, depending on sector, region, and hospital vs clinic The ROI (return on investment) for MR detail is in the range up to ~20x, versus ~4-6x for e-detail. In other words, the cost structure allows for sustained ROI  for e-detailing—even when extending reach beyond the top prescribing quintiles of physicians.”

In the Japanese context, Mckinsey & Consulting further states:

“Right now, e-detailing in Japan is more often used at the beginning of a product’s lifecycle (i.e. to win attention during product launches) or at the end (i.e. to sell established products). These are what we call ‘stay in the race’ practices; necessary, but not sufficient.”

Perceived advantages of ‘e-detailing’:

The traditional way of detailing through ‘Visual Aids’ may not be good enough today when the available time with the doctor has come down drastically. Just providing, by and large, the usual ‘one size fits all’ types of data/information to the doctors is gradually proving to be not effective and efficient enough to generate expected outcome. There is a dire need for helping these busy doctors to get access to drug information they value and trust at a time of their need and convenience.

Thus, the process of medical detailing should be made highly flexible depending on whatever time is chosen by each doctor to satisfy his/her specific needs.

In such an environment ‘e-detailing’, as discussed above, would help creating customized, more impressive, self-guided by doctors and more focused presentations with significant reduction in the detailing cost/ product with improved productivity.

Moreover, ‘e-detailing’ would:

Make expensive printed promotional aids redundant
Eliminate time required and cost involved to deliver such material
Have the flexibility of change at any time
Ordering of just required samples online, eliminating wastage

Fast increasingly number of doctors using computers and the Internet for professional purposes, especially in the urban areas, would facilitate this process.

Key success factor:

Experts believe, besides developing an effective and user-friendly tool for e-detailing, the important success factor for such initiative by a pharmaceutical company would well depend on:

Well planned integration of ‘e-detailing’ into the Customer Relationship Management (CRM) strategy
Deep understanding of physician segments
Efficient application of ‘e-detailing’ to support marketing goals.

The challenges:

Though there are many benefits for ‘e-detailing’, it throws some challenges too, as follows:

Still many doctors continue to prefer the personal touch of the MRs in traditional detailing

Some doctors do give prescription support to a company based on their good relationship with the concerned MRs

Despite hectic schedule, many busy doctors continue to take time out to interact with such MRs.

Though such relationships do not develop with all MRs, this challenge needs to be effectively overcome to make ‘e-detailing’ successful wherever possible, probably by creating an optimal mix of traditional and ‘e-detailing’.

A recent initiative:

Recent media reports highlight one such innovation, among many others. Pfizer has reportedly come out with an interesting innovation in the field of medical detailing to the primary care doctors. This new service of the company ‘Ask Pfizer’ claims that it can provide promotional product information to the doctors at a time convenient to them. Thus the ‘digital medical representatives’ of Pfizer leave the decision as to whether they want to see them and if so, when.

‘Ask Pfizer’, featuring in the website called ‘Pfizerline’ of the company says that the system is:

Simple
Flexible
Convenient
Calls can be arranged to suit the doctors’ busy practice schedule
Online meeting room provides a rich multi-media interaction where the doctor can see trained country-specific’ digital representative making product presentations and also discuss the relevant subjects with them.

Pfizer is advertising this new service called ‘digital detailing’ on the British Medical Journal (BMJ) website aiming, reportedly, at the UK doctors.

This initiative is indeed innovative, as it creates an environment of direct marketing in an indirect way with the help of simple Internet applications like Skype.

Conclusion:

Like many other industries, in the pharmaceutical industry too, across the world, communication of relevant information in an interesting way is of utmost importance. Here also. Indian pharmaceutical industry is no exception.

Since ages, the pharma players in India, in general, have been continuing to follow the traditional model of product detailing, hoping to generate more and more prescriptions from the doctors by deploying a larger and larger contingent of MRs, who highlight superiority of their respective products over competition.

Some may argue, there is nothing wrong in this model, but question would arise, is it still as productive as it used to be? This is mainly because, the doctors are now giving lesser and lesser time to the MRs.

Those pharmaceutical companies of the country who sincerely believe that innovative use of technology in the digital world of today may considerably help addressing this issue, at least in the urban areas, would possibly get a head start, as they delve into the future for business excellence in this area.

With e-detailing they will be able to provide an interesting communication option to the top-prescribers having a very busy schedule for top of mind recalls of their respective brands, leading hopefully to increase in prescription generation.

It is worth noting, though ‘e-detailing’ is emerging as an important innovation in the field of product detailing, there are still some questions that need to be answered. Some of these questions could be as follows:

Would many doctors prefer to schedule time for this purpose after a busy day’s schedule?

Would the information overload from other sources not keep them away from seeking more information through such a process?

Taking all these into consideration, the question that we need to answer: Is ‘e-detailing’ the future of pharmaceutical sales, also in India?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Balancing Strong IP Protection, Public Health Safeguards and Declining R&D Productivity – A Crafty Gutsy Ball Game

Posted on April 16, 2012 by Tapan Ray

Pharmaceutical innovation has always been considered the lifeblood for the pharmaceutical industry and very rightly so. However, many studies do point out that such innovation has benefited the developed world more than the developing world.

Product Price and Access:

In the paper titled ‘TRIPS, Pharmaceutical Patents and Access to Essential Medicines: Seattle, Doha and Beyond’, published in ‘Chicago Journal for International Law, Vol. 3(1), Spring 2002’, the author argues, though the reasons for the lack of access to essential medicines are manifold, there are many instances where high prices of drugs deny access to needed treatments for many patients. Prohibitive drug prices, in those cases, were the outcome of monopoly due to strong intellectual property protection.

The author adds, “the attempts of Governments in developing countries to bring down the prices of patented medicines have come under heavy pressure from industrialized countries and the multinational pharmaceutical industry”.

While the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS) of the World Trade Organization (WTO) sets out minimum standards for the patent protection for pharmaceuticals, it also offers adequate safeguards against negative impact of patent protection or its abuse in terms of extraordinary and unjustifiable drug pricing. The levels of these safeguards vary from country to country based on the socio-economic and political requirements.

The Doha Declaration:

Many independent experts in this field consider the Doha Declaration as an important landmark for recognizing the primacy to public health interest over private intellectual property and the rights of the members of WTO to use safeguards as enumerated in TRIPS, effectively.

To protect public health interest and extend access to innovative medicines to majority of their population whenever required, even many developed/OECD countries do not allow a total freehand for the patented products pricing in their respective countries.

Early signals of global empathy:

While expressing similar sentiment ‘The Guardian’ reported that Andrew Witty, the global CEO of GlaxoSmithKline, has decided to slash prices on all medicines in the poorest countries, give back profits to be spent on hospitals and clinics and more importantly share knowledge about potential drugs that are currently protected by patents.

Witty further commented that he believes, drug companies have an obligation to help the poor patients getting appropriate treatment and reportedly challenged other pharmaceutical giants to follow his lead.

An interesting study:

A study titled, ‘Pharmaceutical innovation and the burden of disease in developing and developed countries’ of Columbia University and National Bureau of Economic Research, to ascertain the relationship across diseases between pharmaceutical innovation and the burden of disease both in the developed and developing countries, reported that pharmaceutical innovation is positively related to the burden of disease in the developed countries but not so in the developing countries.

The most plausible explanation for the lack of a relationship between the burden of disease in the developing countries and pharmaceutical innovation, as pointed out by the study, is weak incentives for firms to develop medicines for the diseases of the poor.

Point – Counterpoint:

A contrarian view to this study argues that greater focus on the development of new drugs for the diseases of the poor should not be considered as the best way to address and eradicate such diseases in the developing countries. On the contrary, strengthening basic healthcare infrastructure along with education and the means of transportation from one place to the other could improve general health of the population of the developing world quite dramatically.

The counterpoint to the above argument articulates that health infrastructure projects are certainly very essential elements of achieving longer-term health objectives of these countries, but in the near term, millions of unnecessary deaths in the developing countries can be effectively prevented by offering more innovative drugs at affordable prices to this section of the society.

A solution emerging:

Responding to the need of encouraging pharmaceutical innovation without losing focus on public health interest, in 2006 the ‘World Health Organization (WHO)‘ created the ‘Inter-governmental Working Group on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property (IGWG)‘. The primary focus of IGWG is on promoting sustainable, needs-driven pharmaceutical R&D for the diseases that disproportionately affect developing countries.

Declining R&D productivity:

Declining R&D productivity adds another dimension to this raging debate with a snowballing effect, as it were.

Over a period of decades, the business models for small-molecule based blockbuster drugs have successfully catapulted the global pharmaceutical business to a high-margin, dynamic and vibrant industry. However, a time has now come when the golden path from the ‘mind to market’ of the drug discovery process is becoming increasingly arduous and prohibitively expensive.

Deploying expensive resources to discover a New Chemical Entity (NCE) with gradually diminishing returns in the milieu of very many ‘me too’ types of new drugs, does no longer promise a strong commercial incentive.

The impact of the above scenario also gets reflected in the status of International patent filings under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) of the ‘World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)’ as follows:

A. Last five years, PCT filings:

The last five years’ PCT filing status does not seem to be encouraging either.

Year	PCT Filings	Change %
2007	159,926
2008	163,240	2.1
2009	154,406	(5.4)
2010	164,316	6.4
2011	181,900	10.7 *(E)

* Estimate

B. Country-wise PCT Filing in 2011:

While having a closer look at the data, it becomes quite evident that in terms of percentage increase in the PCT filings two Asian countries, China and Japan, have registered their overall dominance. However, in terms of absolute number USA still ranks first.

County	No. Of PCT Filings	% Increase
USA	48,596	8
China	16,401	33.4
Japan	38,888	21
Germany	18,568	5.7
South Korea	10,447	8

C. Technical-field-wise PCT Filing in 2011:

In terms of the technical fields, pharmaceuticals ranked fifth in 2011.

Rank	Industry	No. Of PCT Filings
1.	Electrical Machinery, Apparatus, Energy	11,296
2.	Digital Communication	11,574
3.	Medical technology	10,753
4.	Computer technology	10,455
5.	Pharmaceuticals	7,683
6.	Organic fine chemistry	5,283
7.	Biotechnology	5,232

D. Biotech/Pharma companies featuring in WIPO’s Top 100 filers list:

Very few biotech and pharmaceutical companies featured in the Top 100 PCT filers’ list of WIPO as follows:

	Company
1.	Procter & Gamble
2.	Sumitomo Chemical
3.	DuPont
4.	Dow Global
5.	Novartis AG
6.	Roche
7.	Merck GmbH
8.	Sanofi-Aventis GmbH
9.	Bayer CropScience AG

E. The top five university PCT filers in 2011:

Universities of the US dominated among the PCT filings by the Academic institutions as follows:

University	No. Of PCT Filings
University of California, US	277
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, US	179
University of Texas System, US	127
Johns Hopkins University, US	111
Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, South Korea	103

Need to encourage pharmaceutical innovation:

Based on the WIPO data, as mentioned above, the current status of the global pharmaceutical innovation does not seem to be very encouraging.

That said, in the environment of declining R&D productivity of the global pharmaceutical industry, there is indeed a strong requirement to encourage pharmaceutical innovation across the globe, based on the socio-economic environment of each country, together with adequate safeguards in place to protect public health interest.

Why protect patent?

The pharmaceutical major Eli Lilly has very aptly epitomized the reason for patent protection in their website called ‘LillyPad’, as follows:

“Pharmaceutical companies continue to invest in innovation not only because it is good for business, but it is what patients expect. If we want to continue to have breakthrough products, we need patent protection and incentives to invest in intellectual property. The equation is simple, patents lead to innovation – which help lead to treatments and cures”.

Conclusion:

Currently, various socio-economic expectations, demands and requirements, not just for the poor, but also of the powerful growing middle class intelligentsia are gradually getting unfolded on this subject from many parts of the globe. These collective demands cannot be either wished away or negotiated with a strong belief that the future should be a replication of the past.

There should be full respect, support and protection for innovation and the product patent system in the country. This is essential not only, for the progress of the pharmaceutical industry, but also to alleviate sufferings of the ailing population, effectively.

At the same time, available indicators point out that the civil society would continue to expect in return just, fair, responsible and reasonably affordable prices for the innovative medicines, based on the overall socio-economic status of the local population. Some experts have already opined that prices of life saving innovative drugs, unlike many other patented products, will no longer remain ‘unquestionable’ in increasing number of countries.

Thus, even at the time of declining pharmaceutical R&D productivity, striking a right balance between a strong patent regime and safeguarding overall health interest of its population, particularly of those with a very high ‘out of pocket’ expenditure towards healthcare, will indeed be a crafty gutsy ball game for a country.

By: Tapan J Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: productivity

Criticality of Bridging the Skill Gap in Today’s Indian Pharma Industry

How Creative Is Pharma Industry?

An Interesting Link: Productivity At Work And Employee Fitness (Part 2)

An Interesting Link: Productivity At Work and Employee Fitness (In 2 Parts)

Making New Cancer Drugs Cost-effective

Pharma R&D: Chasing A Rainbow To Replicate The Past

‘e-detailing’: The Future of Pharmaceutical Sales?

Balancing Strong IP Protection, Public Health Safeguards and Declining R&D Productivity – A Crafty Gutsy Ball Game