Tag Archives: Strategic

Define And Adapt To Reality: Two Pivotal Pharma Leadership Skills For Sustainable Excellence

Posted on by
Reply

Max DePree – a much quoted American businessman and author had once said: “The first responsibility of a leader is to define reality.”

While defining the reality within the drug industry today, it makes many industry leaders to ponder, despite so much of the good work done by the industry in various fields of pharma business, across the world, including India, why is the public perception on the overall leadership of this sector still so negative, and continue going south? Pharma leaders know the reasons too, but they seem to be still searching for the right set of answers without breaking the traditional mold of business.

Around end 2007, being concerned with this trend, the then Chairman of Eli Lilly reportedly expressed publicly what many industry observers have been saying privately for some time. He said: “I think the industry is doomed, if we don’t change”.

On the general apathy of breaking the traditional mold after having defined the business reality, an interesting article titled, “Healthcare Leadership Must Shift From A Cottage Industry To Big Business”, published on June 2, 2014 in Forbes, made some interesting observations, which are as relevant to India, just as many other countries of the world.

The article states that the ‘Healthcare Leadership’ has not kept up with the industry’s evolution to big business over the past 25-30 years – nor does it possess the required change management competencies to effectively lead and rapidly turn around an adaptive health care business model. Thus, unlike many other knowledge industries, pharma sector is still struggling hard to convert the tough environmental challenges into bright business opportunities. This leads to an important question: Being mostly inward looking, are these leaders failing to properly define reality around them, and therefore, not adapting to the critical external business environmental needs, soon enough?

Is current pharma leadership too inward looking?

From the available details, it appears that today, many inward-looking pharma leaders tend to ignore many serious voices demanding access to high quality medicines at affordable prices, especially for life threatening ailments, such as, cancer. Instead of engaging with the stakeholders in search of a win-win solution, global pharma leadership apparently tries to push the ball out its court with a barrage of mundane and arrogant arguments highlighting the importance of ‘drug innovation’ and hyping how expensive it is. Notwithstanding that by now, many people are aware of its frequent use, generally by the global pharma players, mostly as a veil, whenever required. Even then, many pharma leaders, instead of accepting the reality, continue to remain insensitive to the concerns not just of most patients, but other stakeholders and their respective governments also. This mindset further reinforces their inward-looking and self-serving image. This brings to the fore the key issue: Is this high time to pass the baton to a new breed of pharma leaders?

In the above backdrop, this article dwells on some intrinsic issues involved with the leadership puzzle of the industry, as it were. Thereafter, it deliberates on the importance of making some easy self-tests available to the young and especially the millennial pharma professionals, to facilitate them to self-discover themselves in this space, and that too at an early stage of their professional career, as they try to understand and define the business and environmental realities facing the industry.

Leadership skills are difficult to find:

Focusing on the pharma industry, I would say, especially in the pharma sector, leadership skill in all its functional areas though is considered as the most important one, but are equally challenging while identifying the right persons.

The 20th Pharma CEO Survey, March 2017 of PwC, vindicates this point. The survey covered 89 pharma CEOs from 37 countries. Nearly all the Pharma CEOs participating in this survey picked out leadership as the most important for their organization, giving it the top spot, closely followed by problem-solving, creativity and innovation, all bracketed in the second, with collaboration and adaptability occupying the equal third rank, as follows:

Relative importance of skills in pharma industry Skill sets Respondents answering somewhat difficult or very difficult to get each one of these
1. Leadership 79
2. Creativity & Innovation 75
3. Emotional intelligence 72
4. Adaptability 63
5. Problem-solving 55

Over two-thirds of the CEOs face difficulty in recruiting people with the requisite skills that they consider most important to their organization, such as, leadership, problem-solving, and creative skills, the report highlighted. For further deliberation hereunder, I shall pick up the top one – the leadership skill for the pharma industry, as I see it.

The age-old question – ‘Are leaders born or made?’

A critical question that is often asked even today – ‘Are leaders born or made?’ The question keeps coming as some enthusiasts continue to argue that successful leaders are born with visible or apparently invisible leadership traits.

Are leaders born?

To answer this question, let me quote an example. The Management Study Guide (MSG), well-articulated an approach to the study of leadership known as the ‘Great Man Theory’, giving examples of the great leaders of the past, such as, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Queen Elizabeth I, Abraham Lincoln and Mahatma Gandhi. They all seem to differ from ordinary human beings in several aspects, possessing high levels of ambition coupled with clear visions of precisely where they want to go.

Added to these examples are many top business executives, sports personalities, and even contemporary politicians, who often seem to possess an aura that sets them apart from others. These persons are cited as naturally great leaders, born with a set of personal qualities that made them effective leaders. Thus, even today, the belief that truly great leaders are born, is not uncommon. Thus, according to the contemporary theorists, leaders are not like other people. They do not need to be intellectually genius or omniscient prophets to succeed, but they should certainly have the ‘right stuff’, which is not equally present in all people, MSG highlights.

Even today, some continue to believe in the ‘Great Man Theory’, regardless of many well carried out research studies of the behavioral scientists establishing that it is quite possible for individuals becoming leaders through various processes, such as, self-learning, keenly observing or working with some good leaders, following their advices, training, and practicing the experiences thus gained in one’s real life.

Are leaders made?

Just as above, to answer this question, as well, I would cite another important example.

A September 21, 2016 article titled, “What Science Tells Us About Leadership Potential”, published in the ‘Harvard Business Review (HBR)’, while answering the question ‘who becomes a leader’, stated as follows:

“Any observable pattern of human behaviors is the byproduct of genetic and environmental influences, so the answer to this question is ‘both’.  Estimates suggest that leadership is 30%-60% heritable, largely because the character traits that shape leadership - personality and intelligence - are heritable. While this suggests strong biological influences on leadership, it does not imply that nurture is trivial. Even more-heritable traits, such as weight (80%) and height (90%), are affected by environmental factors. Although there is no clear recipe for manipulating the environment in order to boost leadership potential, well-crafted coaching interventions boost critical leadership competencies by about 20%–30%.”

What would a young pharma professional do in this situation?

The current breed of top leaders would continue grooming and promoting mostly those who fit their profile, while in the family owned businesses succession usually takes place from within the family. The situation is no different in the pharma industry. However, various studies indicate that millennial professionals with leadership traits will develop themselves.

Keeping this in mind and, at the same time, going by the above HBR article, I would tend to accept the dictum that, “Any observable pattern of human behaviors is the byproduct of genetic and environmental influences”. Thus, for identifying and then honing leadership skills in the pharma business, just as many other industries, I would prefer the process of dovetailing the heritable leadership traits with various environmental influences.

An ambitious pharma professional with high aspiration to make a difference in the organization that the individual represents, would obviously wonder what the way forward for him to achieve the goals. In my view, an honest self-test is the first and basic move in this direction.

The self-test:

Taking a cue from the article titled “Strategic Leadership: The Essential Skills”, published in the January-February 2013 issue of The Harvard Business Review (HBR), I would suggest that the young professionals may wish to ask themselves the following important questions:

  • Do I have the right networks to help myself see opportunities before competitors do?
  • Am I comfortable challenging my own and others’ assumptions?
  • Can I get a diverse group to buy into a common vision?
  • Do I learn from mistakes?

The answer to each of these ones should be clear and honest, as one doesn’t need to disclose those answers to anyone else. Nonetheless, by following this process, a young professional gets a clear view of where he or she stands in each of these important areas, which cover some of the basic traits of a leader.

The leadership package:

Irrespective of whether an individual has some heritable leadership traits or not, the above self-test would reveal a person’s strengths and weaknesses, help address the deficits and optimize the full portfolio of leadership skills, independently or otherwise.

Nevertheless, it is important to bear in mind, as several research studies have already established, though leadership skills are important and difficult to find, a few other salient skills such as, ability to apply in real life a creative and innovative mindset, supported by high emotional intelligence or emotional quotient (EQ) are also critical. This is because, together these offer the all-important leadership package for an all-round successful leader.

Should pharma leadership be eclectic?

I guess so, as there does not seem to be any better alternative either. Thus, I reckon, traditional pharma leadership needs to be eclectic. It has still got a lot to learn from other industries too. Let me give a relevant example here – to speed up development of electric cars by all manufacturers, the Cofounder and Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk of Tesla Motors has reportedly decided to share its patents under ‘Open Source’ sharing of technologies with all others. Elon Musk further reiterated: “If we clear a path to the creation of compelling electric vehicles, but then lay Intellectual property (IP) landmines behind us to inhibit others, we are acting in a manner contrary to that goal.”

In the important ‘green’ automobile space, this is indeed a radical, gutsy and an exemplary decision to underscore Tesla Motor’s concern about global warming.

Why such type of leadership is so rare in the global pharma world, even today? Besides sanctimonies, as these appear, why the global pharma leaders are not taking similar large scale initiatives for drug innovation, especially in the areas of difficult diseases, such as, Cancer, Alzheimer’s, Multiple Sclerosis and Metabolic disorders, just to name a few? For this purpose, pharma organizations would require mettlesome change agents who can break the traditional mold –new leaders of the millennial generation having a different business outlook altogether, could possibly do so.

Becoming a change agent:

Today, more than ever before, the ultimate goal of pharma leaders requires moving beyond making more money to satisfy the shareholders and stock markets. It also needs to include the requirements of society, in general, more than what mandatory CSR demands. This is palpable today, as many stakeholders vehemently questioning the business game plan of many pharma players. Would this situation change? I don’t know, but it should, which prompts a change in the overall quality of pharma leadership, at all levels. I have had reason to believe that a good number of bright, millennial pharma professionals look for empowerment to discover themselves early. Right at that stage, they also need to chart a road map for self-development, which would facilitate attaining their professional goals, quite in sync with the broad societal expectations, as they move on in life.

New pharma leadership would require greater focus on ethics and engagement:

While pharma industry leaders, in general, have been impressive articulators of all right things that need to happen, ‘Talking the Talk’ and ‘Walking the Walk’ in the frontiers of business ethics, values and shared goals are found wanting in many of them. These articulations are probably used to run expensive global ‘Public Relations (PR)’ campaigns, lobbying and advocacy initiatives in the corridors of power.

What else then could possibly be the reason for such perception gap that this great industry has allowed to increase, over a long period of time? Could it be that many pharma leaders have not been able to adequately adapt themselves to the demands of the changing healthcare environment and the needs of various stakeholders in this sector? Is the leadership, therefore, too archaic and it’s a time for a change?

Thus, unlike the current pharma leadership, the new age leadership needs to be ethically grounded, and engage all stakeholders effectively in a transparent manner with impeccable processes of governance involving all areas of business. Such leaders may not be know-all individuals in the pharma business, but must possess a clear vision of where they want to lead the company to, and don’t slip back, especially in terms of public image and meeting patients’ expectations.

In conclusion:

Pharma business in modern times faces rapidly changing stakeholder expectations, which are generally difficult to predict well in advance. Thus, today’s pharma leaders require to adapt their strategic approach and the tactical game plans accordingly for business excellence in an inclusive manner, and simultaneously try to shape the environment to the extent possible.

There is a growing expectation from the pharma leaders to do business by imbibing a caring outlook towards the society, where it operates. Spending time and money to transplant the past practices in the changed environment, or continuing with the traditional business approaches, I reckon, is a no-win game today.

Thus, there arises a need to help the young pharma professionals, from the early stages in their professional life, for shaping up as the chief change agent in the organization that they would lead. Even after reaching where they wanted to reach, these leaders should keep studying on a continuous basis, various other successful leadership styles, approaches and visions, to splice them into a more productive strategic approach for the business or functional areas that they lead.

This new breed of leaders would also require defining the reality prevailing in the industry on an ongoing basis, to pave the way for a glorious future for their respective organizations. This effort would call for regular and effective engagement with all the stakeholders through various digital and other platforms. The critical question that the new pharma leadership should never forget to continually ask themselves: “How can my organization provide better access to high quality and effective medicines to most patients along with achieving commercial excellence in business?”

Properly defining and quickly adapting to associated environmental realities with a creative mind, requisite emotional intelligence and ethical business practices, would call for coming out of the zone of comfort with promptness. These, I reckon, would be the two pivotal success factors for new pharma leaders for inclusive and sustainable success in business, as the industry moves on.

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.

Multi-channel Engagement: A New Normal In Pharma Marketing

Posted on by
Reply

The 2015 Report of AffinityMonitor reconfirms that access to important doctors for pharma Medical Representatives (MRs) continues to decline. Now, fewer than half of all doctors are truly accessible to the MRs, down from nearly 80 percent in 2008. In other words, though MRs continue to be the best way to engage the average physician, this “best way” is steadily getting worse.

However, for physician engagement, all digital channels put together to rank the second highest. These include both digital “push”, such as, email or alerts sent to a physician’s smart phone – followed by telemarketing, direct mail; and digital “pull”, such as content that doctors can access on their own from the Internet, and peer interactions, like webinars.

With the new digital channels emerging, pharma companies will have a wider range of promotional and engagement channels to reach out to not just the doctors, but also other important stakeholders. Additionally, various non-personal marketing channels could also help pharma companies overcome the declining trend of restricted access to physicians for MR.

No single channel works for all physicians:

Although, no single channel works for all physicians, as each doctor has a unique preference for how he or she wants to receive information across various channels, most doctors will engage with pharma players in some way. The findings of this report are based on data compiled from more than 100 pharma brands, including engagements with 632,000 physicians across a wide range of specialty areas, and more than 123 million individual physician interactions.

The report suggests that by understanding those channels on a physician level, and targeting their marketing and promotion accordingly, pharma companies can hone the effectiveness of each physician engagement, and thereby improve sales and marketing productivity considerably, for excellence in business.

Similar trend in India with varying degree of difficulty:

Similar trend, though with varying degree of difficulty, can be noticed in India, as well. Over the past several years, many top pharma companies have been already experiencing the steadily declining quality of access of pharma MRs to many important doctors.

This is primarily due to the number of patients coming to these busy practitioners is fast increasing, and as the doctors are trying to see all these patients within the same limited time that was available to them, as in the earlier days. In tandem, their other obligations of various kinds, personal or otherwise, are also overcrowding the same highly squeezed time space.

Thus, an increasing number of MRs, which has more than doubled in the past decade, is now fiercely competing to get a share of lesser and lesser available time of the busy medical practitioners. Added to this, a gross mismatch between the inflow of doctors with similar prescription potential and ever increasing inflow of patients, is making the situation worse.

Reevaluating traditional marketing and sales communication models:

In this complex scenario, the key challenge before the pharma players is how to make sales communication with the busy medical practitioners more productive?

Consequently, many pharma companies, across the globe, have started reevaluating their traditional sales communication models, which are becoming increasingly expensive with diminishing returns from the MR calls.

As I discussed in some other article, a few drug companies have commenced using various interesting multi-channel digital platforms, though mostly fall under the traditional pharma sales communication process.

I shall now briefly glance over the trend of responses of the Indian pharma companies over a couple decades, to meet these challenges of change.

MR based Experimentations:

With a strong intent to squarely overcome this challenge, many Indian pharma players initially tried to experiment with several different MR based approaches, in various permutations and combinations. It was initially directed to make the prescription generation process more productive, by equipping the MR with a wide range of soft skills.

Some pharma players also tried to push up the overall sales productivity through additional rural market coverage to Tier IV cities and below. Quite a few of them succeeded in their endeavor to create profitable business models around the needs of hinterland and rural geographies.

These pharma players, though quickly realized that extra-urban geographies require different tactical approaches, broadly remained stuck to the traditional marketing and sales communication models. These approaches include, differentiated product portfolio, distribution-mix, pricing/packaging and promotional tools, considering most the doctors are not as busy as their counterparts in the metro cities and large towns.

Strategic marketing based experimentations:

Several changes were also made in the strategic marketing areas of pharma business, though most of these, if not all, were imbibed from the global marketing practices of that time. These were well captured in an IMS report of 2012. Some of these strategic marketing shifts were as follows:

  • Strategic Business Unit Structure (SBU): To bring more accountability, manage evolving business needs and use the equity of organization for reaching to the middle of the accessible pyramid.
  • Therapy Focus Promotion: Generally seen where a portfolio is specialized, therapy focused, and scripts are driven through chosen few doctors; generally, in chronic segment.
  • Channel Management: Mostly adopted in OTC /OTX business; mature products with wider portfolio width.
  • Hospital Task Force: Exclusively to manage the hospital business.
  • Specialty Driven Sales Model: Applicable in scenarios where portfolio is built around 2 or 3 specialties.
  • Special Task Force: Generally adopted for niche products in urban areas, such as fertility clinics or for new launches where the focus is on select top rung physicians only.
  • Outsourced Sales Force: Generally used for expansion in extra-urban geographies or with companies for whom medico marketing is secondary (such as OTC or Consumer Healthcare companies).

Pharma MNCs did more:

In addition, to increase sales revenue further, many pharma MNCs engaged themselves in co-promotion of their patented products with large local or global pharma companies operating in India, besides out-licensing. A few of them pushed further ahead by adopting newer innovative promotional models like, Patient Activation Teams, Therapy Specialists, or creating patient awareness through mass media.

Realizing quickly that patients are increasingly becoming important stakeholders in the business, some of the pharma MNCs started engaging them by extending disease management services, along with a clever mix of well-differentiated tangible and intangible product related value offerings, such as, Counseling, Starter kits, Diagnostic tests, Medical insurance, Emergency help, Physiotherapy sessions, and Call centers for chronic disease management, to name a few. Concerned doctors used to be reported about the status of the patients, who were not required to pay anything extra for availing these services from the MNC pharma companies.

Nevertheless, despite all these, declining productivity of the traditional pharma sales communication models continued, predominantly from the extremely busy and very high value medical practitioners/experts/specialists, as mentioned above.

The critical point that remained unaddressed:

At that time, pharma sales communication kept focusing on customer/market types and characteristics. Most companies missed the emerging order of unique customer preferences towards the medium of sales communication, and differentiated message requirements for each doctor. Not many pharma players could probably realize that MR’s quality of access to doctors for productive sales communication would emerge as one of the most critical issues, and become increasingly complex.

Leveraging technology for an effective response:

Amid all these experimentations with pharma sales and marketing models, a few companies did ponder over leveraging technology to chart a novel pathway for effectively addressing this emerging challenge. They tried to ascertain:

  • Whether the traditional sales approach would continue to be as relevant as opposed to digitally customized sales applications?
  • Whether MRs would continue to remain as relevant in all areas of pharma prescription generation process, in the years ahead?

First major venture in e-marketing:

Towards this direction, in 2013, Pfizer reportedly started using digital drug representatives to market medicines, leaving the decision in doctors’ hands as to whether they would want to see them.

Prior to that, in 2011, a paper published in the WSJ titled, “Drug Makers Replace Reps With Digital Tools” stated that pharmaceutical companies in the United States are downsizing their sales force with increasing usage of iPad applications and other digital tools for interacting with doctors.

Lot many other fascinating experimentations with pharma e-marketing have now commenced in several places of the world, many with considerable initial success. However, most of these efforts seem to be swinging from one end of ‘face-to-face’ sales communication with doctors, to the other end of ‘cyber space driven’ need-based product value sharing with customers through digital tool kits.

Blending the right communication-mix is critical:

Coming back to the AffinityMonitor 2015 Research Report, today pharmaceutical and biotech companies have at their disposal more than a dozen of promotional channels to include in their strategy, spanning across, from traditional methods to digital ones.

Some physicians still want to interact with MRs, others restrict MR detailing, as they prefer to get the required information from various credible websites, directly, and from their peers. One doctor may prefer to regularly use a mobile application for product information, while another similar physician may rarely wish to surf the Web for information to achieve the same purpose. Some others may simply not engage with any sales communication no matter what the channels are. Although overall accessibility to MRs is getting more restricted, some doctors are still more accessible than others, the report finds.

Segmenting doctors by their accessibility to personal promotion, such as, MRs and by non-personal promotion like other channels, including digital, allows pharma companies to identify potential gaps in their marketing approach.

For example, of the 54 percent of doctors who are less accessible to MRs, 15 percent show good accessibility to other channels. In other words, those doctors haven’t closed the door for good, just yet. Pharma companies can still reach them, provided they use the right approach, the report suggests. Drug companies would, therefore, require gathering specific information doctor-wise, and customizing both the medium and the message for effective brand value delivery, accordingly.

Sales and marketing avalanche too isn’t working:

This study revealed that a pharma company’s top 100 doctors receive as high as 423 contacts a year, and the top 10 doctors receive more than 600 each year. Given such volume, it’s easy to imagine how doctors can start to get buried under an avalanche of sales and marketing. It’s also easy to see how even the right message, in the right channel, to the right doctor, could get lost in all the noise, and may even create a bad customer experience for many physicians, the report concludes.

Conclusion:

The decline in pharma MR’s quality of access to physicians for brand communication is now well documented. Moreover, ‘one size fits all’ type of message, delivered even by the best of MRs, is unlikely to be productive in the changing macro environment.

Therefore, the right knowledge of whether a doctor would prefer to engage through traditional marketing and sales communication methods by meeting with an MR, or would just prefer to get his/her required information through any digital medium, is critical for success in the new ball game. This in turn will help generate the desired level of prescription support for any pharma brand.

Still, a majority the doctors’ choices in India would, possibly, involve MRs, while a good number of other important doctors’ choices may probably be independent of them. Nevertheless, from this emerging trend, it’s clear now that multi-channel engagement would be a new normal in pharma sales and marketing, sooner than later.

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.

To accelerate increasing ‘Access to Modern Medicines’ in India: A Strategic Approach

Posted on by
Reply

Currently no one knows what the ‘Access to Modern Medicines’ in India is, in real term. Like many others, both local and global. I myself was quoting the World Medicines Situation of 2004 report, the base year of which is actually 1999. Thus there should not be even an iota of doubt in anybody’s mind that the above reported situation has changed quite significantly during the last decade in India and the statement that both the government and the industry alike has been making since then, ‘only 35% of the population of the country, against 53% in Africa and 85% in China has access to modern medicines’, is indeed quite dated. It does not make sense, at all, in the recent times of the Pharmaceutical industry in India.

More surprisingly, an updated information on the subject does not seem to be available anywhere, as yet, not even with the World Health Organization (WHO). However, the good news is, it has been reported that the ‘World Medicines Situation’ is currently being updated by the WHO.

 Access to modern medicines is improving in India:

Be that as it may, CAGR volume growth of the pharmaceutical industry since the last ten years has been around 10%, leave aside another robust growth factor being contributed through the introduction of new products, every year. Encouraging growth of the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM), since the last decade, both from the urban and the rural areas certainly signals towards significant increase in the domestic consumption of medicines in India. In addition, extension of focus of the Indian pharmaceutical Industry, in general, to the fast growing rural markets clearly supports the argument  of increasing ‘Access to Modern Medicines’ in India. The improve in access may not exactly be commensurate to the volume growth of the industry during this period, but a major part of the industry growth could certainly be attributed towards increase in access to medicines in India.

For arguments sake, out of this rapid growth of the IPM, year after year consistently, if I attribute just 5% of the growth per year, for the last nine year over the base year, to improved access to medicines, it will indicate, at least, 57% of the population of India is currently having access to modern medicines and NOT just 35%, as I wrote in this blog earlier.

Unfortunately, even the Government of India does not seem to be aware of this gradually improving trend. Official communications of the government still quote the outdated statistics, which states that 65% of the population of India does not have ‘Access to Modern Medicines’ even today. No wonder, why many of us still prefers to live on to our past.

Be that as it may, around 43% of the population will still not have ‘Access to Medicines’ in India. This issue needs immediate attention of the policy makers and can be achieved with a holistic approach to resolve this issue. A robust model of healthcare financing for all socio-economic strata of the population, further improvement of healthcare infrastructure and healthcare delivery systems are the need of the hour.

Percentage growth in the healthcare budget is higher than that of the GDP:

With the increase of healthcare expenditure by 15% for 2008-09 and further increase in 2010-11, as announced by the Finance Minister in his recent Budget Speech, the healthcare expenditure as a percentage to GDP still remains around 1.0%, which is quite inadequate to address the key healthcare issues of the country.

The Prime Minister has already has expressed his intent that India will be able to increase its public healthcare spend to around 2.5% of the GDP, when GDP growth will touch the double digit figure of 10%, which I reckon, is no longer a pipe dream.

Explore a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) with the stakeholders of the Pharmaceutical Industry:

To address the critical issue of access to modern medicines, policy makers should now actively consider a series of closely integrated PPP initiatives. These PPP initiatives will initially include ‘Below the Poverty Line’ (BPL) families of our country, which not only constitute a significant part of our population, but also will have almost nil purchasing power for medicines. Thereafter, the scheme, slightly modified, should be extended to all ration card holders in India.

Possible impact of such PPP initiatives on improving access to medicines:

If such PPP initiatives are carefully and innovatively strategized, carefully planned and diligently executed, the access to modern medicines in India could increase from current 57% to over 63% of our population within a year’s time  and to over 82% of the population over a period of next five years.

A ‘Back of the Envelope’ Strategy Outline:

The Objective:

To improve access to medicines to over 60% of the population one year after the execution of the strategy and to over 80% within the next five years. The key stakeholders, especially the pharmaceutical companies in India, will work closely with the Government under PPP initiatives for the improvement of access to modern medicines initially to the BPL families, significantly, who have almost no purchasing power for medicines.

The Plan:

- The stakeholders, mainly the pharmaceutical industry, to work out a suitable methodology to help the Government to reach all pharmaceutical formulations covered under ‘National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM)’ to the BPL families across the country and gradually extend it to all ration card holders in India.

- The government would extend appropriate Tax cuts to the concerned companies, as an incentive towards their involvement in the PPP initiatives.

- The National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) would continue to strictly implement its drug price monitoring mechanism for all categories of drugs to keep their prices well under control, always.
Key Assumptions:
- According to Planning Commission of India (2007) the population of India is 116.9 Crore or 1.169 billion.

- According to ‘Centre for Science & Environment (August 2007)’ the latest figures on poverty place 27% of India’s population below the poverty line (BPL) out of which 72% reside in rural areas.

- No price of medicines will be affordable to the BPL families.

- The National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO) report on “Public Distribution System & Other Sources of Household Consumption, 2004 – 05” shows that only 28% of the rural poor have benefited from any type of government food assistance schemes, including ‘Public Distribution System’ and for urban areas the figure is just 9.5%. That means about 72 Million people below the poverty line are having ration cards.

- According to 1995 World Bank Study, the established per capita health spending is around Rs.320 per year.

- McKinsey in their report “India Pharma 2015” has stated that expenditure on medicines is 15% of total healthcare spend i.e. Rs.48 per year.

Methodology:

- Identify the number of BPL families who hold ration cards to receive free/subsidized medicine.

- Determine the cost to be incurred by the Government for purchase of medicines under NLEM.

- Devise a system of generating commensurate funds to improve access to BPL families.

- Operationalize the distribution of medicines to BPL families with public transparency

- Increase penetration of ‘Jan Aushadhi’ outlets simultaneously as a supportive incremental measure

Projected increase in ‘Access to NLEM Drugs’:

Million
Population of India

1169
27% of Population is BPL

316
72% rural

228
28% urban

88
28% of 228 million have ration cards

64
9.5% of 88 million have ration cards

8
Total BPL ration card holders

72
Current Access to Modern medicines of 57%

666
When all ration card holders get NLEM drugs the access improves to:

738

�
SO, IF AT LEAST THE BPL RATION CARD HOLDERS GET NLEM MEDICINES, ACCESS IMPROVES FROM 57% TO 63.2%.

Cost implications of Increasing Access from 57% to 63.2%:

  1.  72 million ration card holders will need Rs.48 worth medicines per year i.e. Rs.3456 million or Rs.346 Crores.
  2. If Industry contributes 0.6% of its turnover which will attract full tax (both direct and indirect) exemptions from the Government, the industry contribution works out to Rs.170 Crores.
  3. A similar amount should be provided by the Government for purchase of free/subsidized medicines for exclusive dispensing to the BPL families.

To operationalize improved ‘Access to Medicines’:

- All ration card holders to be provided with a separate card (if not a smart card) for issue of medicines with a Unique Identification Number.

- Each ration shop will have a separate counter named ‘Jan Aushadhi’ for medicine, which will cater to only registered BPL families.

- Government to arrange to train the Ration Shop owners/employees in Pharmaceutical storage and dispensing

- Doctors of Primary Healthcare Centers, Block Dispensaries will be directed to provide free treatment and prescribe NLEM medicines to the members of BPL families holding such ration cards.

- Subsidized/free supply of medicines will be made against prescriptions from the ‘Jan Aushadhi’ counters of the Ration Shops to these families.

- The doctors’ prescriptions with a copy of the bill will be retained by the respective Ration Shops to account for such purchases of medicines by the BPL families.

- More & more members of BPL family will be encouraged to register for ration cards and be eligible for free / subsidized medicines.

Conclusion:

On completion of this scheme for BPL families and after covering all ration card holders, overall the access to modern medicines in India could increase from 57% to over 80% over a period of 5 years.

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.

 

 

Envisaging a paradigm shift in strategic marketing of pharmaceutical in India

Posted on by
Reply

PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) recommended, about three years ago, in mid-2007 that for sustainable business performance the research-based global pharmaceutical companies should move a part of their significant expenditure from marketing to research. They also recommended that the drug prices should be related to incremental efficacy that the products would provide.

The report titled ‘Pharma 2020: The Vision’ commented that the business model of the global pharmaceutical companies is “economically unsustainable and operationally incapable of acting quickly enough to produce the types of innovative treatments demanded by global markets.”

Undergoing a paradigm shift:

As we witness, the global pharmaceutical industry is undergoing a paradigm shift. More drugs are going off patent than what the innovator companies can replace with the new products. The research is undoubtedly failing to deliver.

At the same time, the business growth in the developed markets of the world has been declining over a period of time. The growth in the top two pharmaceutical markets of the world viz, USA and Japan had gone negative. IMS predicted in their recent ‘CEO Conclave’ in Mumbai that low growth trends in these markets will continue even beyond 2013.

In the same conclave IMS predicted that within ‘Pharmerging’ markets, China is expected to record highest CAGR growth of over 25%, followed by India and Turkey around 12-14% each. With such a scorching pace of growth China is expected to become third largest pharmaceutical market in the world in 2013 with India holding its 2008 ranking of no. 13.

Global pharmaceutical ‘Marketing Expenditure’ is increasing:

The publication titled “The Cost of Pushing Pills: A New Estimate of Pharmaceutical Promotion Expenditures in the United States” co-authored by Marc-André Gagnon and Joel Lexchin estimated from the data collected from the industry and doctors during 2004 that the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spent 24.4% of the sales turnover on promotion, versus 13.4% for research and development. This was as a percentage of US domestic sales of US$ 235.4 billion in that year.

The researchers used 2004 as the comparison year, as this appears to be the latest year in which information was available from both IMS Health and CAM Group, the two international market research companies that provide the marketing and sales data together with those of consulting services. IMS obtains its data from pharmaceutical companies, while CAM obtains its data from the doctors. This study appeared in the January 3, 2008 issue of PLoS Medicine, an online journal published by the Public Library of Science.

The above findings though highlight that the US pharmaceutical industry is overall marketing-driven, also argues strongly in favor of a shift away from this direction.

Another publication named, the ‘Triangle Business Journal’ reported the findings from another study of ‘Cutting Edge Information’, a pharmaceutical research company based in Durham, North Carolina, USA. This survey reported, “the companies marketing the six blockbuster (turnover US $ 1 billion in the first year) drugs it studied spent an average of $238.5 million to market each product.”

The “Pharmabiz” of April 2, 2007 also reported, “The study of top 15 global pharma giants revealed that the marketing expenditure as percentage of total sales of these companies worked out to 30.5 as against the R&D expenses as a percentage of total sales of 15.1.”

Such high marketing expenditure is not sustainable in the long run – alternatives being explored:

As reported by IMS Health, in 2009 though the global pharmaceutical market recorded a turnover of US $ 837 billion with a growth rate of around 6.4% compared to 11.8% in 2001, the moot question remains, whether such type of marketing expenditure is sustainable during the era when the “patent cliff’ is pushing the global pharmaceutical industry to the brink.

This situation gets further aggravated when IMS Health reports, as the world’s 10 top selling prescription drugs go off patent, it will be difficult to replace them in terms of single-product value turnover. These brands are as follows:

- Lipitor, US$13.5 billion (Pfizer)

- Plavix, US$7.3 billion (sanofi-aventis)

- Nexium, US$7.2 billion (AstraZeneca)

- Seretide/Advair, US$7.1 billion (GlaxoSmithKline)

- Enbrel, US$5.3 billion (Amgen and Pfizer)

- Zyprexa, US$5 billion (Eli Lilly)

- Risperdal, US$4.9 billion (Johnson & Johnson)

- Seroquel, US$4.6 billion (AstraZeneca)

- Singulair, US$4.5 billion (Merck)

- Aranesp, US$4.4 billion (Amgen)

The business focus is now on the emerging markets like, India:

Thus the business focus of the global pharmaceutical majors are now on the key emerging markets, like India not only with their patented products, but more importantly by having a robust fast growing branded generic portfolio to more than offset the loss of revenue and profit from the blockbusters, as they go off patent.

Publicly expressed expectations of some Governments of the emerging markets:

Governments of some of these emerging markets expect local benefits out of the evolving growth opportunities of the global pharmaceutical companies from their respective countries. Various reports indicate that there could be following two key issues in these markets:

• Local manufacturing of products
• Pricing

Local manufacturing:

Out of these emerging markets, Indonesia has clearly spelt out its intention by specifying that the pharmaceutical companies marketing their products in Indonesia will need to establish local manufacturing facilities. The new rule is directed towards local job creation.

The Health Minister of Indonesia had commented, “If they want to get licenses (to sell their products) they have to invest here also, not just take advantage of the Indonesian market.” The Minister further added, “They can’t just operate like a retailer here, with an office that’s three meters by three, and make billions of rupiah. That’s not fair.” It has been reported that India and China may ultimately come out with similar requirements for their respective countries.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce has registered a strong protest in this matter with the President of Indonesia and has urged a reversal of this decision. However, the country appears to have taken a firm stand in this matter. This is evident when in response to the report that some global pharmaceutical companies have threatened withdrawal of their business from Indonesia because of this reason, the Health Minister retorted, “If they want to go away, go ahead.”

Pricing:

Anticipating such moves in the emerging markets, some global companies like, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and MSD have already started implemeting differential pricing strategies for their patented products in the emerging markets like India.

Some visionary global CEOs like, Andrew witty of GSK strongly believes that such differential pricing will enable more patients in the emerging markets to afford his company’s products. Consequently the increased sales volume will not only offset the sales value loss but will also create a substantial goodwill for the company in these markets, over a period of time.

Quoting Andrew Witty the ‘Wall Street Journal’ (WSJ) reported that in Philippines, GSK had reduced the price of 28 products by 30% to 50%. In other emerging markets of Asia including India, Malaysia and Thailand the company has reduced the prices of Cervarix, its cervical cancer vaccine, substantially.

India has also witnessed such differential pricing strategy by other innovator companies for their patented products in the country.

Prescribing four new key strategic changes in the new paradigm:

In the new paradigm, almost in tandem, four new key strategic changes, in my view, will gradually unfold in the Indian pharmaceutical market. These are as follows:

1. An integrated approach towards disease prevention will emerge as equally important as treating the diseases.

2. A shift from just product marketing to marketing of a bundle of value added comprehensive disease management processes along with the product will be the order of the day.

3. Over the counter (OTC) medicines, especially those originated from natural products to treat common and less serious illness, will curve out a sizable share of the market, as appropriate regulations are expected to be put in place adequately supported by AYUSH.

4. Most importantly, the country will move towards an integrated and robust healthcare financing system, as already articulated just in the last month by Mr. Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission of India, which will usher in the following changes:

- Doctors will no longer be the sole decision makers for prescribing drugs to the patients and the way they will treat the common diseases. Ministry of Health/ Healthcare providers/ Medical insurance companies will start playing a key role in these areas by providing to the doctors well thought out treatment guidelines.

- For a significant proportion of the products that the pharmaceutical companies will sell, tough price negotiation with the healthcare providers/ medical insurance companies will be inevitable.

- Health Technology Assessment (HTA) or outcome based pricing will gradually play an important role in pricing a healthcare product.

- This could well mean lesser role of the Medical Representatives in the demand generation process for the pharmaceutical products, which could possibly have a positive impact on the cost of marketing and sales promotion, incurred by the respective pharmaceutical companies.

Conclusion:

With all these changes within the Indian pharmaceutical industry, it may not be easy for the local players to adapt to the new paradigm sooner and compete with the global players on equal footing, even in the branded generic space. In my view, those Indian Pharmaceutical companies, who are already global players in their own right and relatively well versed with the nuances of this new ball game, will have a significant competitive edge over other domestic players. The global-local companies, in my view, will offer a tough competition to the local-global players, especially, in the branded generic space and at the same time will be able to bring down their marketing expenses significantly.

So far as other domestic players are concerned, the fast changing environment could throw a new challenge to many of them, accelerating the consolidation process within the Indian pharmaceutical industry.

We all should be well aware, just as today’s pharmaceutical business dynamics in India are not replica of what these were in the yesteryears, tomorrow’s pharmaceutical business dynamics of the country will not be a replica of what these are today.

By Tapan 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.

Differentiating Seven ‘Ps’ of Marketing-Mix for Health Food Products – A strategic overview

Posted on by
Reply
As estimated by Nicholas Hall the health food products market in India is currently around U.S.$ 1.3 Billion with a huge marketing potential. However, the marketing-mix for such groups of health food products will need to be crafted in an innovative way and carefully tailored to suit the need of individual brands, by an astute marketer.
Definition of Health Food Products:In my view, the health food products are those, which have a favorable impact on human health, their physical performance or state of mind. Such products include various types of food substances, dietary supplements with medical benefits and are used mostly for the prevention of various types of diseases.

The global market:

The global market for health food products is projected to be around U.S.$ 190 Billion by 2010 with a CAGR of 6.1% during 2000 – 2010. In 2007 its market size was reported to be U.S.$ 166 Billion.

Categories of health food products:

Before we delve into the space of marketing-mix, let me try to categorize these products under the following six categories:

• Functional Foods:

- These are dietary components, which provide health benefits beyond basic nutrition, like
isabgool or psyllium husk, whey proteins, bran or oats

• Medicinal Foods:

- These are functional foods with more medicinal value, for e.g. cranberry juice, anti-diabetic/anti-obesity health
bars with added medication etc.

• Nutraceuticals:

- This category comprises of substances which are foods or part of a food with usually preventive health benefits
like vitamins, minerals, gingko biloba, coenzyme Q10, carnitine, ginseng, garlic, tulsi, kalmegh, brahmi, saffron,
ashwagandha, green tea, karela powder etc.

• Phytochemcials:

- These products are like lycopene found in tomatoes or flavanoids in fruits. Such substances usually do not
possess any nutritive value but offer some disease preventive properties.

• Ayurvedic and Herbal Medicines:

- These are derived from plants and are used as such or in form of extracts and possess disease preventive
properties.

• Other health related products are like sports nutrition and various types of organic foods.

Key Drivers:

In my view following are the four key drivers of the health food products market in India:

• Consumer awareness:
- Increasing consumer health consciousness will increase the popularity of health food products

• Changing lifestyle:
- Incidence of lifestyle diseases like hypertension, diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular diseases has been
increasing with fast changing consumer lifestyle. Moreover, increasing cost of serious medical treatment is
also encouraging people to go for preventive health care.

• Ageing population:
- Ageing population in India is expected to contribute significantly to increase the demand for health foods
supplements and functional foods to address various types age related health conditions.

• New scientific evidence of various health foods:
- Ongoing scientific research studies to establish health benefits of various food substances and dietary
supplements will help expanding the ambit health food products at a faster speed.

Key challenges for Herbal Food Products:

Herbal products taken from two or more different sources may not necessarily have the same potency, leading to concerns of batch to batch product quality variations in terms of efficacy, which depends on the potency of the material used.

Differentiating the marketing-mix:

For health food products, instead of conventional four Ps of marketing, one will need to consider the following seven Ps:

1. Product :

Health food products will need to have the following:

• Scientifically documented health benefits
• Innovative product development targeting different consumer segments
• Clear brand differentiation
-Without this ‘Horlicks Vs Viva’ story is expected to be repeated more often than in the past with enlightened consumer base.
• Reasonable standardization

2. Place:

Innovative use of this ‘P’ will play a critical role in the success of any health food product.

The following distribution outlets for the health food products are important:

• Kirana / Grocery stores
• Supermarkets

However, equally important is the availability of these products in pharmacies as many consumers will perceive these products as important as medicines and may enquire at the pharmacy outlets for their availability.

• Multi Level Marketing (MLM)
- MLM can be used innovatively for health food products marketing, as is being done currently by Amway, Herbal Life etc.

3. Price:

Price of a health food product like many other products is a function of values that the brand will offer and will also depend on:

• Differential brand features and benefits
• Product life cycle

However, pressure on margin for health food products will be more due to:
• Strong bargaining power of distributors’ chain / supermarket stores, unlike pharmaceutical products where retail and wholesale margin is fixed in India
• High promotional expenditure due to usage of both mass media and relatively intensive personal selling.

4. Promotion :

For health food promotion following common tools just like any consumer product marketing will help:

• Advertising through mass media
• Point of Purchase Promotion (POP)
• Sampling

In addition, following campaigns may prove to be highly beneficial for such products:

• Awareness campaign for usefulness of disease prevention measures
• Medical promotion
- This will be important especially for health food products designed for children where the parents usually seek a doctor’s opinion about the product benefits. Doctors may not necessarily prescribe the product but their ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer in reply to parents’ questions on the product may prompt whether the parents will continue with this product for the child or not.

Other types of promotion for health food products may be the following:

• Multi level marketing
• Promotion in schools, sports clubs etc.
• Telemarketing of brand services
- These are especially important for health food products meant for children. In such cases, a telemarketing cell consisting of trained nurses or dieticians, will enquire about the progress of the child with the product and give various advices to the mothers for the child, as required by them. Such types of telemarketing services through specialists will help adding a premium image to the brand to indirectly boost up the sales.
• Internet / social forums
- These tools can also be innovatively used for health food brand promotion.

5. People :

For health food products marketing, people with the following skill sets have been found immensely beneficial:

• Sales person with additional training inputs on concerned health related subjects
• Telemarketing of services with people having nursing or a dietician’s background

6. Process :

- All other ‘P’s’ may work with absolute efficiency, but if the marketing process remains inefficient, the branding exercise may be adversely impacted. Thus following areas need to concentrated upon with equal zest:

• Process efficiency
• Process speed
• Process innovation
• Efficiency of IT interface within the marketing process

7. Physical Evidence :

Now a day’s individual enlightened consumer usually wants to know the ability of the manufacturer and the environment in which a product is manufactured, along with the quality of services that is delivered for the brand. Hence, while considering the marketing-mix for health food products the ‘P’ of ‘physical evidence’ is expected to play an increasingly important role.

Conclusion:

It is therefore of immense importance for the marketers to consider the differentiated marketing-mix of seven ‘Ps’ for health food products in their branding exercise.

By Tapan 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.

Envisaging ‘five emerging key strategic changes’ in the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry

Posted on by
Reply
In India, the domestic pharmaceutical market has clocked a CAGR of around 13% to 14% since the last five years. Currently, the market is dominated by the drugs for mass ailments. However, such trend has already started showing a shift towards ailments related to the life-style of patients. This emerging trend is expected to fast accelerate in future.All such factors put together, driven by the following key drivers for growth backed by strong logistics support and hopefully improving healthcare delivery system are expected to contribute significantly towards faster growth of the Indian pharmaceutical industry, as we move on.Key growth drivers:

The growth drivers may primarily be divided into two categories:

- Local and
- Global

Local:

• Rapidly growing more prosperous middle class population of the country.

• High quality, cost effective, domestic generic drug manufacturers who will have increasing penetration in both local and emerging markets.

• Rising per capita income of the population and in-efficiency of the public healthcare system will encourage private healthcare systems of various types and scales to flourish.

• Expected emergence of a robust healthcare financing/insurance model for all strata of society.

• Fast growth in Medical Tourism.

• Evolving combo-business model of global pharmaceutical companies with both patented and generic drugs boosting local outsourcing opportunities.

Global:

Global pharmaceutical industry is going through a rapid process of transformation. Cost containment pressures due to various factors are further accelerating this process. Some of the critical effects of this transformation process like Contract Research and Manufacturing Services (CRAMS) will drive growth of many Indian domestic pharmaceutical players.

Expecting the need for ‘New Strategic Changes’ of radically different in nature:

The impact of many of these evolutionary changes is being felt in India already. However, some more radically different types of changes, which the industry has not experienced, as yet, are expected to be felt as the country moves on to satisfy the desired healthcare needs of its population while fully encashing the future growth opportunities of the Indian pharmaceutical industry.

Five ‘New Strategic Changes’ envisaged:

Five new key strategic changes, in my view, will be as follows:

1. As the country will move towards an integrated and robust healthcare financing system:

• Doctors will no longer remain the sole decision makers for the drugs that they will prescribe to the patients and the way they will treat the common diseases. Healthcare providers/ medical insurance companies will start playing a key role in these areas by providing to the doctors well thought out treatment guidelines.

• For a significant proportion of the products that the pharmaceutical companies will sell, tough price negotiation with the healthcare providers/ medical insurance companies will be inevitable.

• Health Technology Assessment (HTA) or outcome based pricing will play an important role in pricing a healthcare product.

2. An integrated approach towards disease prevention will emerge as equally important as treatment of diseases.

3. A shift from just product marketing to marketing of a bundle of value added comprehensive disease management processes along with the product, will be the order of the day

4. Patents will be granted on truly innovative medicines and incremental innovation to be protected within the patent life of the original product only or separately for a much lesser period.

5. Over the counter medicines, especially originated from natural products for common and less serious illness, will curve out a larger share as the appropriate regulations will be put in place.

Conclusion:

With the above changes in the ball game of the Indian pharmaceutical industry, it may not be easy for the local players to adapt to such changes sooner and compete with the global players on equal footing. Those Indian Pharmaceutical companies who are already global players on their own rights, will be well versed with the nuances of this new game, within the country. These domestic companies, in my view, will offer a tough competition to the global players, especially, in the generic space.

However, so far as other domestic players are concerned, the new environment could prove to be a real tough time for them, further accelerating the process of consolidation within the Indian pharmaceutical industry. So the ‘writing on the wall’ appears to be ‘prepare now’ or ‘perish’.

By Tapan 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.

Changing pharmaceutical marketing environment demands a change in mindset for a new strategic direction.

Posted on by
Reply
Will the Tsunami of change hit India too?
In the matured markets of the global pharmaceutical industry, individual doctors are no longer the prime target customers. Healthcare providers, patient advocacy groups, pharmacy benefit managers, clinical assessment authorities etc have already emerged as key decision makers for use of various branded or generic medicines and other kind of healthcare facilities/ support for the patients.In India even today individual doctors are the prime target customers for the pharmaceutical companies as, by and large, they are the key decision makers for usage of medicines and other healthcare facilities for the patients.

However, a distinct change, albeit slowly though, is now noticeable within healthcare financing system in India. Slow but gradual emergence of healthcare providers with medical insurance and other related products, patient advocacy groups, standard treatment guidelines etc, are expected to bring in a radical change the way current pharmaceutical marketing strategy is formulated, which continue to revolve round the doctors, mainly. The small ripples of change, blessed by adequate dose of the Government’s financial policy reform measures, may soon get converted into a Tsunami of change, destroying the current pharmaceutical business strategy directions of majority of the companies. Rapid increase in the number of healthcare providers and other related stakeholders with attractive schemes for various strata of the civil society, will herald the emergence of very powerful groups of negotiators for products’ price and other healthcare related services. These groups will be capable to very strongly and significantly influence doctors’ products and other treatment choices.

Marketing will be a ‘composite value delivery system’:

In addition, during the coming years of post product patent regime in the country, pipelines of the domestic Indian companies for new ‘copycat’ versions of patented products are expected to completely dry up, making the price competition in the market place even more ‘cut throat’. In such type of environment Indian pharmaceutical companies will be under tremendous pressure to provide additional composite value, not just the physical products, as differential offerings to the patients, doctors, healthcare providers and other stakeholders, in and around the related disease areas. Ability to deliver such composite differential value along with the product will enable a company to acquire the competitive cutting edge.

Required leadership and managerial skill sets will be quite different:

In the new environment required skill sets of both the leaders and the managers of the Indian pharmaceutical companies will be quite different from what it is today. This will not happen overnight though, but surely gradually.

Skill requirements:

Leaders and managers with only individual functional expertise like, R&D, manufacturing, marketing, regulatory, finance etc will no longer be successful in the new paradigm. To handle new types and groups of customers, the leaders and managers will need to ensure:

• Multi-functional expertise by rotating right people across the key functional areas

• Knowledge of ‘Pharmaco-economics’ and/or ‘health technology assessment’ (HTA)

• Ability to interpret patients’ clinical benefits against cost incurred by the payors to achieve the targeted clinical outcome, especially in the areas of new products

• Insight about the thought pattern of the healthcare providers and other customers or influencers groups

• Speed in decision making and more importantly ability to take ‘first time right’ on the spot decision, which can make or mar a commercial deal.

Managing the phase of transition:

During the ensuing phase of transition in India, pharmaceutical companies should:

• Clearly identify, acquire and hone the new skill sets, which would drive the changing scenario

• Get strategically engaged with the existing public/private healthcare providers and health insurance companies like, Mediclaim, ICICI Lombard, large corporate hospital chains, retail chain chemists and others, proactively

• Drive the change, instead of waiting for the change to take place

• Ensure that appropriate balance is maintained in both types of marketing strategies, in innovative ways.

Conclusion:

Indian pharmaceutical industry has been trapped in a difficult to explain ‘strategic inertia’, as it were, since long. It is high time now to come out of it and face the change upfront boldly and squarely to translate this challenge into a possible growth opportunity. Global pharmaceutical companies are now gaining expertise in the new ball game in the developed markets of the world. If majority of the Indian pharmaceutical companies, who are not yet used to handling such change, are caught unaware of this possible future trend, the tsunami of change could spell a commercial disaster to them. However, I strongly hope that this new and yet another challenge of change will be met with a clear and well thought out strategic initiatives to give a further boost to the growth engine of the industry.

By Tapan 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.

New Drug Policy 2009 – suggesting key elements for a strategic shift in the policy framework

Posted on by
Reply
The new drug policy of the Government of India (GoI) is long overdue. Despite so many reform measures taken by various Governments over last two decades, Indian Pharmaceutical Industry has not seen a new ‘drug policy’since 1995.As an individual who has been closely observing the pharmaceutical industry during this period, I would expect the new UPA Government to work out a new ‘drug policy’, without further delay, after having a fresh look at the current policy, which has outlived its time. The new ‘drug policy’should be aimed at achieving inclusive growth, keeping pace with the progressive outlook and aspirations of young India.Broad policy objectives:

The broad objective of the new ‘Drug Policy’ should undoubtedly be ‘ensuring access to affordable modern medicines to all’, clearly addressing the following key elements, in detail:

1. Affordability:

• The new policy should ensure adequate availability of all ‘National List of Essential Medicines’ (NLEM) at affordable prices.

• ‘Jan Aushadhi’ initiative of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) should be strengthened further through public-private-partnership (PPP) initiatives, using strong public distribution outlets like ration shops and post offices for effective rural penetration of the scheme.

2. Access:

• Around 65% of the Indian population does not have access to affordable modern medicines even today, against 47% in Africa and 15% in China.

• GoI should make effective use of its existing initiatives, take some new initiatives and dovetail them as follows:

- ‘National Rural Health Mission’ (NRHM): to create rural healthcare infrastructure.

- ‘Jan Ausadhi’ scheme: to extend the reach of affordable medicines to a vast majority of
rural population.

- Innovative ‘Health Insurance Schemes’ to be worked out for all sections of the society through PPP, like for example, ‘Yashasvini’, pioneered by Dr. Devi Shetty of Bangalore and the Government of Karnataka, which is possibly the world’s cheapest comprehensive Health Insurance scheme, at Rs.5 (11 cents) per month, for the poor farmers of the state.

3. Research & Development:

• Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 ushered in a new paradigm for the pharmaceutical industry of India. There is a great opportunity for the domestic Indian pharmaceutical companies to discover, develop and market their own New Molecular Entities (NMEs) throughout the world. The new policy should plan to provide adequate fiscal incentives for R&D initiatives taken by the pharmaceutical industry of India.

• R&D in India costs almost a fraction of equivalent expenditure incurred in the west. Because of availability of highly skilled manpower with proficiency in English together with cost advantages, the country has the potential to become the largest global hub for ‘Contract Research’ and other R&D related work being outsourced by the global Pharmaceutical Companies.

• As India is poised to be a global hub for Clinical Trials, the new policy should extend adequate support to companies carrying out clinical studies in India not only to help them record a healthy growth, but also to attract more ‘foreign direct investments’ (FDI) for the country.

4. Exports:

• The Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers reported in its ‘Annual Report of 2006-07′ that exports of Drugs & Pharmaceuticals have doubled during the last four years. To give greater boosts to exports PHARMEXIL should be further strengthened to act as an effective nodal centre for all pharmaceutical exports, together with the responsibilities for conducting extensive promotional activities to accelerate growth for this sector.

• It is estimated that in the next three years sales of over U.S.$ 60 billion being generated by some blockbuster pharmaceutical products patented in the western countries and not in India, will go off patent. This will open the door of significant opportunities for Indian pharmaceutical exports. GoI should help the domestic pharmaceutical companies to encash this opportunity through adequate financial measures and other support, wherever required.

5. Employment generation:

• Indian pharmaceutical industry with its encouraging pace of growth is making good contribution towards employment generation initiatives of the country, both within skilled and unskilled sectors of the population.

• With projected CAGR of around 14%, the employment opportunity, especially for the qualified professionals is expected to increase significantly in the coming years, across the industry, from core pharmaceutical sectors, right through to contract research, manufacturing services (CRAMS) and clinical trials space.

• Recommendations to be provided in the new drug policy should further accelerate such employment generation opportunity by the industry.

6. Contribution to Economic Growth of the Country:

• The new ‘drug policy’ should also address how will the pharmaceutical industry in India contribute more to the economic development of the country through various reform measures, in areas like, R&D, CRAMS, Clinical Trial (CT) and also towards health insurance, for all strata of society.

Innovative new ‘drug policy’ initiative of the new government will not only ensure a stimulating inclusive growth for the industry, but also will help attract adequate FDI for the country.

Broad Strategic shift towards ‘Access to affordable modern medicines for all’:

Ensuring ‘access to affordable modern medicines for all’ should be made one of the key objectives of the DoP. Resorting to populist measures like ‘drugs price control’ may sound good. Unfortunately at the ground level, it has not helped a vast majority of 650 million population of India, thus far.

Therefore, ‘Drugs Price Control’ since 1970 has not been able to ensure ‘access to affordable modern medicines’ to more than just 35% of Indian population. The new ‘drug policy’ should, therefore, shift its focus from ‘Price Control’ to ‘Price Monitoring’, which has been proved to be of great success to keep medicines affordable to the common man, as indicated by the ‘National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority’ (NPPA). However, for government purchases, made to address the healthcare needs of the ‘common man’ there should always be room for price negotiation with the concerned companies, as is being practiced in many countries of the world.

Conclusion:

To achieve the proposed ‘new drug policy objective’ of ‘ensuring access to affordable modern medicines for all’, the policy makers should try to think ‘outside the box’. ‘The old wine in a new bottle’ policy will just not be enough.

By Tapan 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.