Tag Archives: strategy

In Pharma’s Moment of Truth “What You Do is Who You Are”

Posted on by
Reply

It’s a time when pharma industry will be tested, both by its external and internal customers – more than ever before. Looking back, in search of footprints on the sand is no answer either, as there isn’t any. But, a decision on moving ahead has to be made by each drug company in any case – charting a strategic pathway, in search of business excellence, if not for survival. A possibility looms large that the crisis may even overwhelm a company, if any, ill-conceived or ill-thought through steps are taken.

In that sense, the moment of truth has arrived for the industry – a time when ‘what different you do’ in the value delivery process of the business, will decide ‘who you are.’ One’s ability to lead the company or even follow the leadership, to navigate through this crisis, would determine the present and future success of the corporation. This isn’t an easy task. The evolving processes would be challenging to implement, and the traditional mindset may often act as a retarding force, as it were. In this article, I shall explore this critical area with recent examples, as far as possible.

Ability to fathom its most critical component is the bedrock for next steps:

The most critical component in this situation is the ability to make a careful and unbiased assessment of – how different would the ‘new normal’ be from the ‘old normal.’ The focus should not be on the barriers in making the necessary strategic changes, which I hear too often – but how to steer the business through this unprecedented crisis, regardless tough barriers on the way.

Covid-19 threat isn’t going to go away anytime soon:

However, one thing is for sure – no one knows, not just in India, but globally how big the crisis is, and will assume what form, when and how long. Let me give just three illustrations in this area that will be easily understood by all:

  • Initially, experts used to say, face masks are required only for those having symptoms and people close to them. “Masks are not required for those who doesn’t have symptoms. Whereas, the same experts are saying these days, “data now emerging about asymptomatic patients spreading the infection across the country, masks play an important role in containing the spread.” Thus, one is required to wear a face mask always while going outdoors.
  • Explaining the mode of disease spread, earlier, many experts, including the W.H.O, said that COVID-19 virus is primarily transmitted between people through respiratory droplets and contact routes. Thus, a mask is needed when one goes outdoors. Whereas, now the same experts, including the W.H.O, have confirmed that Coronavirus can be airborne indoors. In that case, one may need to wear a mask even indoors.
  • On April 23, 2020 the Director-General of Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), reportedly, claimed that the situation is stable, and the country has been able to ‘flatten the curve.’ But on May 09, 2020, Director, AIIMS, reportedly, said, “Currently, the cases are continuing to grow at a flat rate, sometimes even more. So, it is very difficult to predict when the peak will come; but it is likely to peak around June or July…” Whereas, an MIT study, which has also been reported in the press reveals, “India might see 2.87 lakh Covid cases per day by February 2021.”

These instances drive home the point – although a serious threat of Covid-19 infection will continue in the foreseeable future, but the way it will manifest itself, and the fresh precautionary measures that will deem necessary, may change with time. Let me give one more example of increasing threat of getting re-infected by Coronavirus by already infected individuals has heightened today than in the past.

The battle tactics need to be updated:

Strategy for war against Covid-19 onslaught may broadly remain similar. But the battle tactics in the multiple fronts need to be updated on an ongoing basis. This needs to be based on increasing or narrowing of the spectrum of threat and other critical factors, as scientific evidences will reveal from time to time.

For example, as is unfolding today, a large number of already infected people, particularly living in areas with high population density, may not necessarily develop any long-term immunity against the Coronavirus infection. Such a possibility will have a wide impact on any business strategy in the new normal that an organization may contemplate.

The rationale for constantly updating battle tactics:

Let me now focus on the rationale for constantly updating battle tactics based on scientific evidences with a few contemporary examples. The study, published in the Nature Medicine on June 18, 2020, found that individuals recovering from Covid-19 infection may have immunity only for 2-3 months. Although, it may not necessarily be construed that a recovered person can get re-infected, but any vaccine that may eventually come may need to address such issues, which seems to be a tough call.

Alongside, findings of another large research – Spain’s Coronavirus antibody study, published in The Lancet on July 06, 2020, has also cast doubt on the feasibility of herd immunity as a way of tackling the Coronavirus pandemic. As the BBC News reported on July 07, 2020 - based on these findings, Prof. Danny Altmann, British Society for Immunology spokesperson and Professor of Immunology at Imperial College London has made similar comments on effective vaccine development initiatives.

He said, the study would, “reinforce the idea that faced with a lethal infection that induces rather short-lived immunity, the challenge is to identify the best vaccine strategies able to overcome these problems and stimulate a large, sustained, optimal, immune response in the way the virus failed to do.”

“What You Do is Who You Are”: 

As the saying goes: “What You Do is Who You Are.” With this fast-evolving scenario, pharma leadership will need to effectively address a dual strategic game plan to outmaneuver the barriers of the Covid-19 pandemic:

  • Putting in place a robust operating strategy for customer value delivery process of the business.
  • Capturing the details of new Covid19 related ongoing developments to constantly hone the battle tactics in several different fronts.

Both the above processes will involve picking up all such validated research findings, mostly on the run. Mostly because, such issues may impact both internal and external customers of the organization, besides competition. Therefore, factoring-in each of those new developments, while constantly sharpening the war strategy and battle tactics in the fast-evolving scenario, will be of crucial. And, what you think or do in this situation will determine who you are – what type leadership traits you exhibit to face the challenges of the new normal, effectively.

Two types of leadership in the new normal:

Amid challenges of the present crisis, I reckon, top leadership will find two broad types of domain leaders – ‘pro-tradition’ and ‘pro-change’ – both will have successful past track records. They need to be identified for appropriate strategic tasks.

As is known to many, a good number of successful leaders are operating through decades around the concept of physical presence of patients while consulting a doctor or other health care providers. Several of them seem to be still unsure about the extent of organizational and operational changes required to face this unprecedented crisis, head-on. Even today, some of them keep trying to impress others by citing instances of what they did so well in the past.

There is nothing wrong in that. But, the business environment and requirements of those days were different – quite different from today’s demand. Curiously, many of such good leaders, with impeccable past success records, seem to be more bothered about seemingly insurmountable barriers on the way. They are afraid of migrating away or jettisoning the traditional pathway of success. Probably, the fear of failure – after achieving success for a long time, is the reason. I consider these successful professionals as ‘pro-tradition’ leaders.

There are also examples of another type of leaders. They are generally younger, looking forward with a contemporary mindset, nurture a can-do spirit with a resilience to bounce back, even in difficult times. Which is why, any transient fear of failure doesn’t usually overwhelm them. And, these leaders, I reckon, may be broadly termed as ‘pro-change’ leaders.

Keeping aside, past success records or future success potential of pharma leaders, in the current scenario – what they actually think or do in the changing environment to steer the organization out of this never-before crisis, will indeed determine ‘who they are.’

A contemporary initiative sets an example:

Top leadership of several drug companies, such as those at Novartis, is leading the way for a change management as the new situation will demand – by setting examples for others. These leaders seem to be taking note of all changes, as discussed above, while giving shape to a strategy, and reshaping the same based on data, as and when required. Interestingly, more technology professionals are getting attracted to pharma operations during Covid-19 pandemic than ever before, as a recent research report unfolds. This is a good omen for pharma and needs to be leveraged, effectively.

The findings of a new research report:

A new research report from Novartis -  A Powerful Pairing,  emphasizes: “The global COVID-19 pandemic sparked a seismic shift in the adoption and scaling of digital technologies across the healthcare sector at a pace never before seen. Almost overnight, organizations had to dial-up their efforts to develop, manufacture and ultimately bring medicines to patients in a socially distant world.” The survey brings out some interesting points, such as:

  • 86 percent of respondents believe the time has come for digital healthcare, and many of them are interested in taking part.
  • Regardless of the sector they currently work in, the two industries that technology professionals would consider switching to, are technology and healthcare and pharma (49 percent for each). This interest rises to 58 percent for workers based in India and 55 percent for those based in China. They feel, Covid-19 pandemic has made them more aware of medical causes around the world and how important they are. Through work in this sector, they can save countless human lives.
  • 52 percent of technology talent sees innovation potential in the healthcare and pharma sector, with the top reason to apply for a job being the opportunity to innovate through technology.
  • 89 percent technology professionals say that data science is important to the development and delivery of healthcare industry solutions and services.

Conclusion:

Surging ahead to reach a million mark, as on July 12, 2020 morning, the recorded Coronavirus cases in the country reached 850,358 with 22,687 deaths. With a record high of 27,755 daily cases yesterday, the pace of climb continues.

It’s now virtually a writing on the wall that India will have to sail through the unprecedented Covid-19 pandemic for quite some time, where unprecedented leadership interventions will be of critical importance – even in pharma. This endeavor will also call for selective induction of competent technology professionals in all pharma business domains, as required. The challenge involves not just carving out the ‘war strategy’, as it were, against Covid-19, but also continually honing the ‘battle tactics’ in multiple fronts – mostly on the run, for desired outcomes.

The situation calls for taking an in-depth inventory of an organization’s existing human resources, based on success ingredients required to turn the tide, which, I reckon, should also be the starting point in this venture. In this moment of truth – standing at the cross-roads of the drug industry, there is no further room for top pharma leadership to procrastinate the decision-making process. All competent professionals should be taken on board. In tandem, both – seemingly ‘pro-tradition’ and ‘pro-change’ leaders, should be encouraged to realize that in the new normal “What You Do is Who You Are” in the future pharma business.

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.

Time For Predictive Rather Than Reactive Pharma Strategy

Posted on by
Reply

Traditionally, pharmaceutical industry, across the world, is mostly reactive – rather than proactive or predictive in its strategic approach – spanning across all its business domains. A large number of pharma players – both innovators and generic drug makers, formulate their business strategy – generally reacting to competition, changing market dynamics and patient/ doctor /other stakeholder preferences. The same is being witnessed even during Covid-19 pandemic. However, this trend seems to be more prevalent in India – as one looks around.

For example, in R&D – be it a statin drug, proton pump inhibitors and right up to monoclonal antibodies or cancer immunotherapies – after a first-in-class molecule comes, a plethora of ‘me-too’ – but patented molecules soon follow. A comparable trend in the generic drug categories is also all-pervasive, including fixed-dose combinations (FDCs).

Similarly, even in the good old days of sales and marketing, we have seen – after the first product detailing folder was successfully introduced by a leading pharma company in India, how competition lapped the concept up – considering this change as a magic wand for brand demand generation!

In recent days, a similar trend is surfacing for ‘Digitalization’ of pharma business, mostly reacting to the changing practices of key competitors, or involving patients or doctors’ preferences. It gets reflected in other business domains, as well. With this perspective, in this article, I shall deliberate on this area, especially in view of the current situation.

Traditional ‘safe sailing’ is no longer an option:

The Coronavirus pandemic could be a stronger catalytic factor for the drug industry to initiate the much-desired transition from being reactive to predictive in its strategic business approach- faster. Interestingly, way back in June 2007, the PwC Whitepaper titled “Pharma 2020: The vision”, had also articulated: ‘The social, demographic and economic context in which the pharmaceutical industry (Pharma) operates is changing dramatically.’

Some drug players have already opted to transform their organizations in sync with the changes in the operating environment. But, a vast majority of them preferred to stick to the traditional reactive mindset, for a safe sail, as it were. However, this doesn’t seem to be an option, any longer. Be that as it may, there is nothing wrong in being reactive in strategic business practices, although formulating a predictive or proactive growth strategy demands more cerebral prowess and is much different from the reactive ones.

The difference, I reckon, is similar to that of a leader and the followers, with nearly similar impact on overall corporate image and performance, besides a prime-mover advantage of the latter. Nevertheless, there could be a predictive approach even within a reactive approach to competition. To illustrate the point, let me cite an example related to ‘me-too’ – patented-drug development.

Making an overall reactive strategic approach proactive in nature: 

Among several examples of making a reactive strategic approach – proactive in nature with innovative goals, let me quote a very recent one. For decades, drug companies have been selling ‘me too’ but patented drugs, at prices similar to the original and ‘first-in-class’ drugs, which are successful and enjoying a market monopoly.

Moving away from this trend, a startup drug maker, reportedly, wants to disrupt the traditional pharma industry practices by delivering what most patients and healthcare stakeholders want. It has set a novel goal of becoming patient-centric in its offering by making innovative drugs available at affordable prices. The startup wants to achieve this objective ‘by changing long-held industry practices for developing, pricing, and selling slightly different versions of costly brand-name drugs.’

Accordingly, with a proactive or predictive approach within an overall ‘reactive’ trend, it wants to create a unique niche for itself. The entity ‘will focus on developing “me too” drugs, which imitate the biological functions of existing drugs, but use distinct molecular structures so they don’t infringe on existing drug patents.’

Evolving a new demand of value-based health care system:

During disruptive changes and uncertainties in the business environment, such as what is being experienced today, gaining actionable insight on how these changes will call for new strategies to excel, would require a predictive mindset. This is of critical importance, particularly when a new demand for a value-based health care system is fast unfolding. This subject was well deliberated also in the book – ‘Healthcare Disrupted: Next Generation Business Models and Strategies.’

About six years back what the authors of this book predicted, seems to be a reality today. They had said: The concept of “value” rules the day, undoubtedly. The transition from the old ‘fee-for-service’ to ‘fee for value’, is game changing. On the same subject, another article - Focus on Value 1: The “Tsunami of Change”, published in the ‘eye for pharma’ on March 22, 2026, quoted the authors of this book – explaining the scenario lucidly.

They said, today’s health care system is largely reactionary, as the health services react to the persistence of consumers, their phone calls, queuing for services, waiting in the waiting room and calls to healthcare insurers. Whereas, ‘tomorrow’s system would prompt the health care providers to answer a seemingly simple question: how will they become relevant to a customer group?

Even six years down the line, especially in the current global pandemic situation with an evolving demand of a value-based health care system, this concept remains so relevant, possibly more than ever before. That said, an unforeseen and unprecedented situation could also force a pharma player – already moving on a predictive strategic path, to choose a reactive path – mostly for survival and progress of business.

When a company moves into a ‘reactive’ path from a ‘predictive’ one:

Such instances are infrequent. But a major event like Covid -19 may give rise to such a situation. For example, in the Pharma and Biopharma R&D space, it happened and is still happening. As ‘Evaluate Vantage Covid-19 Report’ of April 16, 2020 highlighted, as follows:

‘Anyone thinking that 2020 might travel down a predictable path for the biopharma sector was swiftly disabused of this view in the opening weeks of the year. The Coronavirus pandemic has changed the focus for almost every drug developer, whether they are working on potential treatments or trying to keep their businesses on track – or both.’ Good or bad, this is the reality today.

However, many of these organizations are unlikely to jettison their well-thought out ‘predictive’ pathway and are expected to soon find ways to move back to it. Thus, the question that one may pose, how does a company move into a predictive pathway from a reactive one? And particularly considering, if Covid-19 pandemic has caused some irreversible changes, or even – a long-term change in the business environment.

Getting back to predictive strategic path from a reactive one:

This issue was also covered in the article – ‘Three Proactive Response Strategies to COVID-19 Business Challenges,’ published in the MIT Sloan Management Review, on April 17, 2020. It wrote, as organizations move from a reactive to a proactive approach to dealing with COVID-19, they should ask themselves the following three questions:

  • Can we offer a version of our products and/or services through an online channel? Going online is the closest equivalent to low-hanging fruit in the current environment.
  • Can we use our existing infrastructure to produce products and/or offer services that are in demand?  Many organizations have allocated infrastructure to produce goods and services to support the fight against COVID-19, but some strategic companies would think beyond the crisis to future changes in consumer needs.
  • How can we rapidly increase our capacity to produce and distribute on-demand products and/or services?  Turning to partnerships with other companies can boost capacity in a crunch situation, such as today.

The need for collaboration, in such extraordinary situation, has also been underscored by the European Pharmaceutical Review. It pointed out - how academia, government and the pharmaceutical industry can work together to potentially ‘repurpose drugs’ for the treatment of COVID-19. This is another example of formulating a predictive growth strategy to create a win-win situation, while being in the midst of a reactive one.

Conclusion:

Meanwhile, despite national Lockdowns at a very early stage on March 24, 2020, India has now climbed up to occupy the fourth highest position in terms of the number of Coronavirus infected cases. Continuing the steep ascending trend, as on June 14, 2020 morning, the recorded Coronavirus cases in the country reached 321,616 with 9,199 deaths.

During the current global pandemic of a humongous scale, drug companies are trying to respond to rapid challenges across their business operations, right from planned R&D programs to effectively maintaining supply chain, including manufacturing activities. If the current COVID-19 pandemic lasts for medium/long term, there could also be significant delays in the execution of various other ongoing projects/programs. This was the analysis of Deloitte in a paper, titled, ‘COVID-19 response for Pharma companies – Respond. Recover. Thrive’

While the full impact of the Coronavirus pandemic is still unknown, adopting a predictive strategy in the prevailing overall reactive environment, is expected to yield a significantly better business performance. As I said earlier, the core difference between adopting a ‘predictive’ and a ‘reactive’ business pathway, under the circumstances, is akin to the difference between a leader and a follower.

Unlocking the value innovation in all areas of pharma business is the name of the game, for excellence. Leveraging Artificial Intelligence (AI) based contemporary ‘predictive’ tools will help pharma players break the new ground, even in such trying times. Coming from this perspective, a ‘predictive’ strategy rather than a ‘reactive’ one, apparently, is the demand of time – where we all are in – today.

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.

Shifting Pharma Supply Chain Strategy From Global To Local

Posted on by
Reply

Alongside large-scale disruptions of many critical industrial operations, Covid-19 global pandemic took the wind out of the sail of pharma supply chain, as well, at the very onset of lockdowns. This happened in many countries around the world, including the largest global pharma market – the United States, and also in ‘the pharmacy of the world’ – India.

That there were such disruptions in India, both in procurement and logistics, during the national lockdown, was widely reported in the media. Besides product non-availability, cost of goods also went up significantly in several cases.

From this perspective, I shall deliberate in this article, how different countries are contemplating to respond to any similar crisis in the future, primarily to safeguard patients’ health interest, despite some opposition, though. To drive home the points, I shall cite examples from India and the United States, as specified above.

Supply Chain vulnerability of the ‘largest pharma market of the world’:

There are several examples to vindicate such vulnerability, both for the US and also India. From the US perspective, the country’s supply of generic and branded medicines are, reportedly, heavily rely on emerging markets, like India and China.

This point has now ‘come under close scrutiny of the American policy makers, as COVID-19 sends shockwaves through the industry. According to the US Food and Drug Administration, China and India represent 31 percent of the plants that are registered with the US to supply Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API), as of August 2019. The details are as hereunder:

Place

United States

European Union

India

China

Rest of the world

Canada

%

28

26

18

13

13

2

It is worth noting, the number of facilities in China supplying APIs has, reportedly, more than doubled since 2010 – to 13 percent of all those serving the US market.

Examples from India:

The outbreak of Coronavirus had just not shut factories in China - impacting supplies and leading to fears of a shortage of drugs and medicines. It happened in India, too. Several critical supply chain issues were reported during this period. For example,  a major Indian drug manufacturing hub - Baddi,reportedly, was either shut down or operated with reduced capacity, since COVID-19 pandemic related national lockdown.

Its impact also got captured by the twitter handle of the former USFDA Commissioner – Scott Gottlieb. He twitted, “Drug supply chain at risk as Asia’s largest pharmaceutical manufacturing hub in Baddi (an industrial town in southwestern Solan district of Himachal Pradesh, India) is declared a #COVID19 containment zone – forcing many pharma units to slow or stop operations.”

Supply Chain vulnerability of the ‘pharmacy of the world’:

Supply Chain vulnerability related to the domestic issues in India, can possibly be sorted out by the country’s decision-making authorities. However, the country’s vulnerability arising out of the reasons originating in the other countries, needs a greater priority focus of the nation.

As is widely known – India caters to about 20 percent of the world’s generic drug supply. However, according to Bloomberg, 70 percent of the country’s imports of APIs come from China, ‘totaling US$ 2.4 billion of India’s US$ 3.56 billion in import spending for those products each year.

Consequently, ‘pharma companies in the country are dependent on China for two-thirds of the chemical components needed to make them.’ Exposures of such nature are now coming on to the center table – mostly triggered by Covid-19 pandemic, both in India, as well as in the United States.

India is reevaluating its import dependence from China:

To illustrate this point, let me begin with some related recent developments. While reevaluating the import dependence, India has taken both immediate and medium to long term measures – at the policy level.

The immediate reaction of India to Covid-19 outbreak, was to shift focus on local with restricted export of common medicines, such as paracetamol and 25 other pharmaceutical ingredients and drugs made from China. Curiously, prior to the national lockdown, on March 17, 2020 by a written reply the Government had informed the Indian Parliament about the import of APIs /drugs and the extent of the country’s dependence on China for the same.

Be that as it may, to protect the local interest, the above ban was followed by another export ban of the age-old malarial drug - hydroxychloroquine, ‘touted by President Trump as a possible weapon in the fight against Covid-19,’ but has been in short supply, globally. Interestingly, India produces around 47 percent of the U.S. supply of hydroxychloroquine. Thus, understandably, Indian Government had to partially lift this ban after the U.S. President Donald Trump sought supplies for the United States.

For medium longer-term measures, while announcing a ₹20 lakh crore stimulus package, Prime Minister Narendra Modi articulated that Covid-19 pandemic had taught India to ramp up domestic production and create supply chains to meet internal demands. Earlier, for safeguarding ‘national healthcare security’, the Government had allocated US$ 1.2 billion for the pharma industry to be self-reliant, by reducing its import dependence, especially for APIs. The government also wants to finance the construction of three bulk drugs with an investment of ₹300 Crores.

The United States is reevaluating import dependence from one region:

The Fierce Pharma article of June 03, 2020 also reported a shifting focus of supply chain from global to local, as the United States seeks to ‘onshore’ drug production, with the fallout of Covid-19 pandemic looming large on its drug supply chain.

U.S. legislators have argued that ‘U.S. reliance on drugs made or sourced outside the country has created a security issue that could be addressed by erecting parallel supply chains stateside and eliminating reliance on potential bad actors abroad.’ Accordingly, they have put forward ‘a raft of legislation’ that would seek to “onshore” drug manufacturing at the expense of major producers abroad.

Its biggest obstacle could be the pharma industry and its lobbyists:

Nevertheless, the same article also underscores that the biggest obstacle to that plan could be the pharmaceutical industry and its lobbyists on Capitol Hill. This is because, PhRMA - the industry’s biggest lobbying group, has pushed back against Congressional support for a supply chain shake-up. It said, “Policymakers must take a long-term, more holistic look at global pharmaceutical manufacturing supply chains before jumping to rash proposals that may cause significant disruptions to the U.S. supply of medicines.”

Will it happen in India?

My article, published in this blog on February 03, 2020, also focused on this issue. There I had emphasized, about five years back - the Government of India had also announced on February 25, 2015 – terming ‘2015 – Year of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients’ (API). This came after ascertaining that over-dependence on imports of bulk drugs or API, especially from China, is detrimental to India’s health interest. This decision was also in sync with the freshly announced, and well-publicized government objective regarding ‘Make in India’, I wrote.

Two years down the line from the above date, on July 15, 2017, eHEALTH publication also deliberated on this issue in an article – ‘Why over dependence on APIs imported from China is harmful for India?’ However, not much change has been witnessed till date, in this regard. The same vow is now being taken afresh. Nonetheless, let me hasten to add, Covid-19 has changed the life of all – in several respects. Thus, no one can possibly vouch with a high degree of certainty what can happen hereafter, as we move on.

Conclusion:

As the ‘Lockdown. 05’ or ‘Unlock down. 01’ begins in India – the ‘pharmacy of the world, as on June 02, 2020 morning, the recorded Coronavirus cases in the country reached 247,040 with 6,946 deaths. India is now racing ahead with its number Covid-19 cases, surpassing Italy and Spain, occupying the global fifth rank, in this regard. Whereas, the top ranked pharma market in the world – the United States, where Covid-19 struck hard before India, recorded 1,988,545 cases with 112,096 deaths, on the same day.

Thus, the need to have a fresh look at the strategic design of pharma supply chain is being felt in both these countries. The requirement for becoming less global and more local is attracting a priority focus of Governments in both countries. With an increasing State-push for safeguarding the health security of the country, the need to reshape pharma supply chain – call it transient or otherwise, is now more palpable than ever before.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

 

Covid 19: Some Unanswered Questions in India

Posted on by
Reply

Ending all speculations, the national lockdown 2.0 with all previous stringent provisions and more, expecting to bring the deadly microbe under a tight leash in India, commenced on April 15, 2020. This is expected to continue till May 03, 2020, keeping a window of opportunity open, for a case by case review, after April 20, which is today. This is now a known fact. But what is still not known to many are the answers to some critical question, such as, the following three, for example:

  • Will the standalone plan for strict compliance of prescribed social distancing norms for over 40 days and possibly much beyond, a comprehensive strategy to end the Covid 19 warfare in India?
  • As this game plan to save lives also involves livelihood of a large population, will it lead to hunger, involving many families?
  • When will the Covid19 nightmare end in India and how?

In this article, let me deal with these three questions, with illustrations.

Is social distancing’ alone a comprehensive strategy?

Experts believe that ‘social distancing’ is undoubtedly one of the key strategic components in the war against the invisible enemy Covid 19, especially to contain the spread of the virus. However, it’s not considered a standalone or a comprehensive strategy to win Covid19 warfare, for good, as it doesn’t help identify asymptomatic individuals – potential candidates for the continued spread of Coronavirus.

What scientific studies reveal?

Covid19 testing strategy in India is mainly focused on foreign returned and symptomatic individuals, alongside contact tracing. Interestingly, the study on the Covid19 outbreak in China, published by Nature Medicine on April 15, 2020, concluded – 44 per cent of those who tested positive, contracted the disease from an asymptomatic person. This happens, as the viral shedding, that can infect another individual, takes place, at least, 2-3 days before symptoms manifest.

Thus, along with containing the spread, it is equally important to trace the asymptomatic individuals at an early stage, then isolate and quarantine them at appropriate facilities, as necessary. Accordingly, many countries follow intensive testing guidelines from an early stage of disease spread. South Korea, for example, has been successful in this area, during the first wave. The same is being followed in the subsequent waves of outbreaks, till an effective antidote, like a vaccine is available to end the war. Hence, this is considered as a comprehensive strategy in the interim period. It was also well discussed and captured by the Indian media.

Lockdowns delay the peaks by about three months:

Experts indicated, ‘lockdowns merely delay the outbreak’s peak by about three months.’ They have also cautioned: ‘Asian countries risk new waves of Coronavirus infections when they lift lockdowns. The same could happen in the rest of the world.’ The world is now witnessing the second wave of outbreak in many countries.

Two seemingly contradictory messages surface:

Going by the ICMR data, according to media reports, India has conducted around 160,000 tests as on April 8, 2020 with the country’s tally of positive cases stands at 6,237 (at 6 pm on April 9). This indicates, 3.8 percent of the tests yielded positive results for Coronavirus. In comparison, the US with a much lesser population than India, has conducted 2.2 million tests. This is the highest among all countries, and a fifth of all those tests throwing up positive results.

An analysis by Worldometer  Get the data  Created with Datawrapper, of Covid-19 tests per capita of the top ten countries, by the number of tests conducted along with India, reveals something interesting. With a population of around 1.3 billion, India’s Covid-19 tests per 10,000 population has been merely 0.04. This is perhaps one of the lowest, especially considering India’s vast population with high density, poor living conditions of a large number of people, besides other risk factors.

Curiously, even the ICMR acknowledged on April 15 that it is critical to increase testing for Covid-19, as the number of cases in India is “rising exponentially.” However, on April 16, 2020, the Government again defended its testing strategy, as Coronavirus cases in India crossed the 13,000 mark on that day.

Didn’t India get a space to ‘buy time’ in 21-day lockdown period?

It was widely expected that the 21-day national lockdown was announced to buy precious time to prepare the country to roll out a comprehensive strategy. This was expected to include, identification of the asymptomatic individuals or persons with very mild symptoms, through intensive testing. Isolation and quarantine these individuals are of immense importance, thereafter, as the situation will demand.

But, why this hasn’t happened that way, as yet, by garnering requisite wherewithal, from – before, during the 21-day national lockdown period, to date, remains an unanswered question.

Will lockdown 2.0 lead to hunger in many poor families?

Dr. Amartya Sen, the Nobel Laureate and the Harvard University professor  explained the situation in an article, published on April 08, 2020. He wrote: “If a sudden lockdown prevents millions of laborers from earning an income, starvation in some scale cannot be far off.” Even the US, which is considered a quintessential free enterprise economy, has instituted income subsidies through massive federal spending for the unemployed and the poor, Professor Sen wrote.

The current situation was anticipated by global experts, well before it surfaced:

Even before it surfaced so strikingly, Professor Sen cautioned, the more affluent may be concerned only about not getting the disease, while others have to worry also about earning an income, which may be threatened by the disease or by an anti-disease policy, such as a lockdown. For those away from home, such as migrant workers, finding the means of getting back home, could also be a huge emotional concern that needs to be addressed with empathy. The emerging situation in this regard, also increases the risk of disease spread in various different ways.

Another renowned economist, Professor Ricardo Hausmann at Harvard University has, reportedly, said, further lockdowns could have dire consequences. Strict social-distancing measures mean that people must stay at home, so many cannot work, particularly those on a daily wage. Developing nations, such as India, do not have much financial flexibility to pay, for these migrants to stay at home for long, he added. Let me hasten to add, India has already announced a financial package for this purpose. But…

Would the announced stimulus package mitigate the economic and social needs?

1.7 trillion rupees (US$ 22.6 billion) stimulus package that India has announced for the poor, is termed modest by the economists, considering the population of the country. India has to weigh the numbers of deaths that will be caused by the loss of livelihoods against those caused by the disease. “For those who have to stay at home, they starve to death,” Professor Hausmann said.

Thus, the question of charting a clear pathway – striking a right balance between life and livelihood, in the face of Coronavirus pandemic in India, also remains an unanswered question.

When will Covid19 nightmare end and how?

It is virtually impossible to win the war against Coronavirus, decisively, only through social distancing as a standalone strategy. Even ‘The Lancet (Infectious Diseases)’ study of March 23, 2020, concluded: “In the absence of any pharmaceutical intervention, the only strategy against COVID-19 is to reduce mixing of susceptible and infectious people through early ascertainment of cases or reduction of contact.”

‘Early assessment of cases or reduction of contact’ will call for a comprehensive strategy-mix of social distancing – intensive testing of asymptomatic individuals – isolation and quarantining those who will test positive. The paper also underscored: “The effectiveness and societal impact of quarantine and social distancing will depend on the credibility of public health authorities, political leaders, and institutions. It is important that policy makers maintain the public’s trust through use of evidence-based interventions and fully transparent, fact-based communication.”

‘If’ and ‘but’ exist:

Interestingly, in the ‘The Lancet’ study, the authors estimated that 7·5 percent of infections are clinically asymptomatic. Whereas, the study published in Nature Medicine on April 15, 2020, concluded that 44 per cent of those who tested positive contracted the disease from an asymptomatic person.  Moreover, The Lancet paper acknowledged that higher asymptomatic proportions will influence the effectiveness of social-distancing interventions. But, the question remains, when will Covid19 nightmare end and how?

Primary ways to end the war:

This issue has been deliberated with scientific reasons in many articles. One such is titled, ‘Herd immunity is the only way the Coronavirus pandemic will end — and it would require a vaccine. Here’s how it works.’ This was published in the ‘Business Insider,’ on April 14, 2020. Like other papers, it also reiterated that individuals could gain immunity to the new Coronavirus, if they develop antibodies. This can happen, primarily in two ways:

  • Herd immunity or after people get infected and recover
  • Vaccination

According to Gavi, herd immunity is the indirect protection from a contagious infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection. Even people who aren’t vaccinated, or in whom the vaccine doesn’t trigger immunity, are protected because people around them who are immune can act as buffers between them and an infected person. Once herd immunity has been established for a while, and the ability of the disease to spread is hindered, the disease can eventually be eliminated, e.g., eradication of smallpox.

However, many scientific papers indicate that pursuing herd immunity through infection by allowing the virus to spread, rather than through a vaccine, would lead to hundreds of thousands more deaths. Moreover, some evidence indicates that a recovered person’s immunity may not be permanent. Hence, developing immunity through vaccination will always be a prudent choice.

Although, how fast an effective vaccine will be available for mass vaccination remains a key question,the good news is, a British scientist who is developing a Coronavirus vaccine, expects it to be ready by September, 2020. Meanwhile, I reckon, a disease specific antiviral drugs will be available to treat the infected persons and prevent death.

Conclusion:

Many of us in India, at various times, behave in a difficult to understand or even a mutually contradictory way. For example, at the call of crisis leadership in the country, in the midst of a Janata Curfew on March 22, 2020, people clapped or got engaged in beating pots and pans from their respective balconies, together at 5 pm. This happened with a huge participation, ‘as a mark of respect for the frontline health workers and medical professionals who were working day and night to contain the COVID-19 pandemic and selflessly treating patients who are affected by it.’ Later on, the same health care professionals and workers were assaulted, abused and even stigmatized, as they try hard to fight the virus. Intriguingly, many of the same people earlier participated in beating pots and pans to show respect for them.

Similarly, ‘citizens across the country lit Diya, Candles and flashed their mobile and torch lights on Sunday following our Prime Minister’s appeal, for a 9-minute blackout to dispel the “darkness” spread by Coronavirus.’ Ironically, in later days, many of these people – from the super rich to poor, acted in contrary to this purpose, for totally different reasons. This happened. But, understanding why it happened in India – right from the call – to its immaculate execution and the contradiction that followed on the ground, is a complex task for many. Perhaps, as complex to understand as, why containing the Coronavirus disease spread, through social distancing alone, is being considered as the only way to win the war against Covid19.

All countries in the world, as the experts say, will reach and pass the peak of the first wave of Coronavirus outbreak at some time. This will possibly not mean the end of the Covid19 war, before a vaccine is available. Thus, long term protection of people against Covid19, in the shortest possible time, is the name of the game. In the midst of these, life moves on – with some critical questions still remaining unanswered. Nonetheless, the resolve to fight and win this war, against an invisible enemy, be it only through social distancing, or with a more comprehensive and scientifically explainable strategy and ultimately a vaccine, continues to linger.

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 Branding At Tough Times

Posted on by
Reply

“About two-thirds of drug launches don’t meet expectations. Improving that record requires pharmaceutical companies to recognize the world has changed and adjust their marketing accordingly.” This appeared in an article – “The secret of successful drug launches,” published by McKinsey & Company in March 2014. There isn’t any recent evidence, either, that this situation has improved now.

Even innovative drugs no longer guarantee a commercial success, as greater competition is building up there, as well. Today, the number of such drugs per indication has risen by 37 percent since 2006 making the task tougher, according to another article of McKinsey & Company, titled ‘Why innovative products aren’t enough for a successful pharma launch,’ brought out in August 2017.

Top marketers’ intimate involvement in these launches, backed by robust marketing strategies notwithstanding, large scale ‘brand failures’ or rather ‘branding failures,’ still remains unavoidable. Although, its telltale signs are more often visible immediately after launch, but may happen even several years after.

Pundits are just not scratching their heads, but doing extensive research to fathom why it happens. However, with changing times – the market dynamics and the research outcomes/inferences keep changing too. And that will be the focus of my today’s discussion in this article, while I explore various facets of the same.

Is pharma branding just a marketing exercise?

That pharma branding is not just a marketing exercise and its failure at any stage – from launch to even years after, I reckon, isn’t the sole responsibility of the pharma marketer. This is mainly because, doctors would ideally prefer to prescribe specific pharma brands and patients would feel confident to use those, because of successful construction of a positive brand bias. Which in turn creates a higher perceived efficacy and a low anticipated safety concern with the brand.

Although, it will be right to assume that good pharma marketers are solely responsible for the creation of this intangible brand asset, but the tangible intrinsic brand value should necessarily be ingrained into each dose of the same that patients consume, always.

Thus, tangible brand value creation, its maintenance, if not enhancement, span across many other functional domains of a drug company. Some of these include, unbiased reporting with expected disclosures of all clinical trial results, maintaining a robust and highly efficient supply chain network or high-quality manufacturing facilities, besides a few others. Evidences exist that irrational pricing could also result in a kind of brand failure. Considering these aspects in totality, creating a positive bias during a pharma brand-building process, is a collective responsibility, and not just of the marketers.

Why creating a positive brand bias is a collective responsibility?

There are ample examples to substantiate that creating a positive stakeholder bias during its brand-building process, is a collective responsibility. Let me illustrate this point by drawing a few examples of branded failures prompted by supply-chain network, disclosures on clinical development and of course perceived ‘irrational’ pricing that falls basically in the marketing domain. It is worth noting, similar incidents may also be related to the manufacturing process, even for top selling generic drugs.

Supply-chain: In the beginning of 2008, serious adverse drug events, some even fatal, were reported with Heparin (Baxter), which used to be widely used as an injectable anticoagulant. Around 80 people died from contaminated Heparin products in the U.S. The US FDA reported that such contaminated Heparin was detected from at least 12 other countries. The primary reason of the same was a serious breach in the supply-chain integrity.

Disclosures on clinical trial results: On 30 September 2004, Vioox (rofecoxib), a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) that had been on the market since 1999, was suddenly withdrawn by its manufacturer MSD, owing to concerns about its effect on cardiovascular health.

‘Irrational’ pricing: Like a lot of new cancer drugs, Zaltrap (aflibercept) wasn’t cheap carrying a price tag of USD 9,600 a month. But its price was quickly taken down. This followed some serious public flak, such as, doctors from Memorial Sloan-Kettering (MSK) wrote a blistering review for The New York Times in November 2012. They declared that MSK was taking the drug off the institution’s formulary, because less expensive and just as good alternative angiogenesis inhibitors were available. Although, Sanofi initially defended the price, it subsequently backed down, cutting down the price by half.

Manufacturing process: On September 13, 2019, the FDA announced that preliminary tests found low levels of N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) in ranitidine (Zantac), a heartburn medication. Consequently, almost all companies, including Novartis (through its generic division, Sandoz), GSK, Apotex and many others announced its withdrawal from a large number of markets. Interestingly, these announcements came after a Connecticut-based online pharmacy informed the FDA that it had detected NDMA in multiple ranitidine products under certain test conditions. The NDMA impurity was believed to have been introduced by changes in the manufacturing process. There are several other well-reported examples, as well.

These examples vindicate that creating a positive brand bias remains a collective responsibility throughout the product lifecycle. And it involves several functional areas of drug companies. That said, let me now focus on the creation of a positive bias for pharma brands.

Creating a positive brand bias:

Skillful creation of a positive brand-bias, supported by high quality – tangible and intangible value offerings, is the net outcome of any successful branding process. It augments stakeholder confidence, leading to an increased prescription generation, alongside a favorable patient experience.

More often than not, a positive brand-bias successfully brings into being greater perceived brand-efficacy and higher perceived brand-quality, with lesser anticipated safety concerns. Consequently, the process invigorates an emotional bonding with customers for a long-term brand-loyalty. A positive brand-bias also creates a strong brand equity that often helps in working out a good pricing strategy for the company.

An interesting strategy prescribed – recently:

The October 8, 2019 issue of Fierce Pharma featured an article on creating a positive brand-bias with “Prime and prompt” marketing strategies, outlined by CMI/Compas.

According to Changing Minds: ‘Priming works by providing people with information that is easily brought to mind. The prompt that brings the information to mind can be an implanted and specific trigger or can be an associated term that will naturally bring back the primed information.’ Illustrating the point, it adds: ‘Prime-and-prompt can be a bit like firing a gun, where priming cocks and prompting pulls the trigger.’

Putting this concept in the pharma industry perspective, the CMI/Compas officials explained in the above article, ‘pharma marketers can create primes with product messages that condition people to recall their product when they need medicine or are diagnosed with a condition.’

Hence, a pharma marketer’s adroitness in the ‘priming’ strategy helps ‘prompt’ the desirable action, such as, going to a doctor to ask about a product. Hence, the persuasion technique is termed – ‘prime and prompt’, the paper explained. Naturally, the question that follows: what are the key principles behind this strategy?

Key principles behind ‘prime and prompt’ strategy:

As elucidated by the Changing Minds, when thinking and deciding, we are influenced by related information from the past. At that time, our memories would supply that information, which helps us understand, make sense, decide and act on the subject at hand. Thus, those things that come at the top of mind will have a more immediate and disproportionate influential effect, while those things which are long forgotten may have little or no effect.

It further adds: ‘Priming is driven by implicit memory, where recall is entirely unconscious as the person ‘just knows’ without having to think hard or otherwise put effort into remembering or working things out.’

How to apply the ‘prime and prompt’ strategy in pharma?

It’s no-brainer that to use ‘priming’ in the persuasion process, say for increasing prescription support, the marketers need to provide stakeholders with relevant information beforehand, and more importantly, in a different setting. And only thereafter, they need to focus on a normal brand persuasion strategy. One may most appropriately comment, this is easier said than done in the drug industry.

Taking a cue from the above interview with the CMI/Compas officials, some of the broad steps of the ‘prime and prompt’ strategy, I reckon, may be summarized as follows:

  • Consistent messaging through omnichannel media achieving target reach and frequency, as I had explained before.
  • For intended top of mind recall, a combination of print, digital, social, search, display at appropriate places and in TV, especially for OTC drugs, should consistently surround the target audience for ‘priming.’
  • According to a recent research, the most highly rated ‘priming’ spots for pharma ads for physicians are medical journals, conferences and the likes. Similarly, for patients, appropriate displays at doctors’ clinics and similar places also appeared to be one of the top-rated ‘priming’ spots.

Consequently, a well thought-out ‘priming’ strategy, skillfully executed – based on research findings, is expected to be effective. It will then help trigger desirable ‘prompts’ for the target-audience, augmenting a successful branding process. However, it comes with a caveat that the tangible intrinsic value of the brand, especially those which originate in other functional areas, don’t get compromised or changed in any way.

Conclusion:

Branding exercise in the pharma industry has never been more challenging, as it is today – both for innovative and generic drugs. As stated above, the number of innovative drugs per indication has risen by 37 percent since 2006, making the market competition tougher. Likewise, product proliferation with cut-throat pricing for branded generics, is also making the generic drug marketers grasping at straws, as it were.

In this challenging situation, creating a positive stakeholder bias for brands, as the net outcome of the pharma branding process, is a collective responsibility. Any non-marketing misstep in the tangible brand value offering, could sweep a brand away to oblivion – not just during launch, but at any stage of its life-cycle. Pharma marketers will of course be solely responsible to create the critical intangible brand assets, such as a positive stakeholder bias for brands.

At this tough time for pharma branding, several fresh marketing concepts like, ‘prime and prompt’ are now being seriously evaluated. Thus, I reckon, its also a time for astute marketers in the pharma industry to test the water, in pursuit of excellence.

By: Tapan J. Ray   

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

 

Why D&I Is A Powerful Growth Driver For Pharma Industry

Posted on by
Reply

‘Diverse India’ now needs an ‘inclusive society’, vowed the Prime Minister of India, after his massive electoral win on May 23, 2019. Many may consider a part of it as rhetoric, notwithstanding, as and when the government policy of Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) gathers wind on its sail, the realization of its importance would reverberate – even in the corporate world, including the pharma industry, especially in India.

I discussed this subject in my article of June 25, 2018 ,in the context of transforminga pharma company to a customer-oriented, profit-making organization, with implementation D&I within the organization. However, in this article, I shall deliberate, over and above, the current status of D&I in the pharma industry, why most drug companies are still not leveraging it as one of the powerful business growth drivers. While opening this discussion, let me recapitulate what these two words mean to us, and their importance in the drug industry.

Recapitulating D&I:

As there are several, but similar definitions of D&I, I am quoting below just one – from the Ferris State University. It goes, as follows:

  • “Diversity is the range of human differences, including but not limited to race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, social class, physical ability or attributes, religious or ethical value system, national origin, and political beliefs.”
  • “Inclusion is involvement and empowerment, where the inherent worth and dignity of all people are recognized.”

The relevance and importance of D&I as a corporate growth policy for the drug industry is immense. It will not just, help them recognize and create business policies, based on diversity in people – a wide range of human differences in their consumers or potential consumers. In tandem, it will also help promote, and sustain a sense of belongingness with the society and communities where it operates – their values, beliefs, expectations and desire for a healthy living.

D&I begins within the company, and for the customers:

There are clear indications that many pharma companies are slowly, but surely realizing that for a consistent and sustainable financial performance the whole approach to business needs to undergo a metamorphosis. One such area of transformation, is a sharp focus on effectively satisfying a set of well-defined expectations of both their external and internal customers.

This journey begins with the creation of a Diverse and Inclusive (D&I) workplace. Nevertheless, the key goal remains – meeting expectations of the society where the drug companies operate, including a diverse set of customers – by saving and improving their quality of life, with affordable and accessible medicines.

While talking about diversity to Business Insider on January 10, 2018, GlaxoSmithKline CEO Emma Walmsley also reiterated, for a future facing employer in an industry, D&I should be a priority corporate strategy – for aggressively modernizing the business.

D&I ‘may be most important in the health care industry’:

This has been well-articulated even in the Workforce – a multimedia publication, where it says: D&I ‘may be most important in the health care industry, where the workforce needs to be both business savvy and socially empathetic to serve their increasingly diverse communities.’

Quoting another CEO, a different article titled, ‘Diversity and inclusion in the pharma industry’, published in PMLiVE on June 27, 2018, emphasized: ‘The global Biopharma industry is one of the most powerful and important industries today, directly affecting the lives of billions of people around the world on a daily basis. In order to understand and meet the critical unmet medical needs of patients, the industry must represent the population it serves.’

D&I is a growth driver for an organization:

“Many successful companies regard D&I as a source of competitive advantage. For some, it’s a matter of social justice, corporate social responsibility, or even regulatory compliance. For others, it’s essential to their growth strategy.” This was highlighted in the January 2018 research paper of McKinsey titled, ‘Delivering through Diversity.’

The article further elaborates: ‘D&I is a powerful growth strategy for an organization because it creates ‘a diverse and inclusive employee base – with a range of approaches and perspectives – would be more competitive in a globalized economy.’

Importantly, this research established a statistically significant correlation between greater levels of diversity and inclusion in company leadership and a greater likelihood of outperforming the relevant industry peer group on a key financial performance measure – profitability.

Some drug companies are moving in this direction:

That some drug companies are gearing up to adopt this growth strategy, but still there is a lot of ground to cover in this area, gets reflected in the December 2018 ‘Diversity & Inclusion Benchmarking Survey’ of PwC. The survey included 183 corporate respondents from 5 regions and 15 countries. As many healthcare organizations have publicly declared their commitment to D&I, the study wanted to measure how they have translated strategy into execution and what impact it is leaving on the employee experience. The following are some of the key findings

  • While D&I is a stated value or priority area for 68 percent of organizations, only 51 percent of respondents disagree that diversity is a barrier to progression at their respective companies. Thus, ‘Diversity still remains a barrier to progression.’
  • Only 4 percent of healthcare organization’s D&I programs reach the highest level of maturity.
  • D&I program goals are quite varied. For about 38 percent it’s a way to attract and retain talent – 25 percent – a way to comply with legal requirements – 17 percent to achieve business results – 13 percent to enhance the external reputation and 8 percent to respond to customer expectations.
  • Interestingly, in 39 percent of cases there was no D&I program-leader in place, 32 percent cases the person reports to senior executives, 19 percent of cases the responsibility was assigned to staff with non-D&I responsibilities and only in 10 percent of cases – the leader is a peer to C-suite.
  • Only 29 percent leaders are tasked with specific D&I goals.

These may not be the points to cheer about – not yet, nonetheless, the survey findings send a clear signal about the beginning of D&I in the pharma industry.

Two facets of D&I for a pharma company:

As I said before, D&I is more important in the health care space, especially for drug companies, where the employees across the organization not just be business savvy with patient orientation, but also be inclusive and socially compassionate to benefit the diverse communities.Thus, there are two clear facets, I reckon, around which organizational D&I policies, especially for pharma players, should be formulated, as follows:

  • For employees within the organization.
  • For stakeholders outside the organization – putting patients at the core of the business strategy.

The above PwC survey is on the first one – D&I for employees within the organization. However, a holistic D&I policy requires dovetailing business savviness with a socially empathetic mindset to serve increasingly diverse communities, is even more challenging.

More challenging is dovetailing business savviness with social empathy: 

To serve increasingly diverse communities, dovetailing business savviness with socially empathetic mindset, appears to be more challenging for the pharma industry, in general. Its manifestations are varied, such as, dented image or its declining reputation – leading to trust deficit with many stakeholders, including patients. Likewise, one of primary causative factors that give rise to such manifestations is considered to be in the drug pricing area.

The current scenario in this area has been captured in a paper titled, ‘Curbing Unfair Drug Prices’, published by The Yale Global Health Justice Partnership (GHJP), Yale Law School, Yale School of Public Health, National Physicians Alliance and Universal Health Care Foundation of Connecticut. The article unambiguously states, the high cost of prescription drugs is unsustainable, wherever it is. Spending on prescription drugs is increasing, either for different payers, or directly to patients through ‘out of pocket’ expenditure – at a faster pace than any other component of health care spending. Consequently, it is forcing many patients to skip doses of critical medicines, and several others to choose between their health and necessities, like food and rent.

The paper adds: “Meanwhile, the pharmaceutical industry continues to launch new drugs at exorbitant prices, increase prices of many old drugs without justification, and reap record profits. Evidence has unequivocally shown that high drug prices are not linked to the actual costs of research, development and manufacturing. Instead, inflated drug prices are a result of drug manufacturers’ power to charge whatever price the market will bear. The need for legislative action is urgent.”

One of the most recent examples of such jaw-dropping drug price was reported by Reuters, along with many others, on May 25, 2019 as: “Swiss drug maker Novartis on Friday won U.S. approval for its gene therapy Zolgensma for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), the leading genetic cause of death in infants and priced the one-time treatment at a record $2.125 million.”

That said, achieving this facet of D&I, is not just desirable, but also necessary to gain a sharp and well-differentiated competitive edge in sustainable financial performance. It is noteworthy that to be successful in this area, one of the key requirements is to assign specific accountability for D&I to that individual, where the bucks stop.

Assigning specific accountability for D&I implementation:

Yet another article titled, ‘Diversity and Inclusion: A Pharma 50 Perspective’, published in PharmExec on June 23, 2016, asserted that there is little point in tackling diversity without solving for inclusion.

It underlined: ‘Whereas diversity is the hardware bringing different machines together, inclusion is the software that brings the system to life.’ The authors suggested, as many others would: ‘Hiring a chief diversity officer can help, accelerating the process at the highest levels.’

Conclusion:

The good news is, the above McKinsey research study also found: ‘Corporate leaders increasingly accept the business imperative for D&I, and most wonder how to make it work for their firms and support their growth and value creation goals.’ The article reiterated the correlation between D&I and company financial performance. Thus, to effectively leverage this factor, developing a robust corporate D&I strategy aimed at both – the employees and the society, at large, appears to be the right choice.

From this perspective, a diverse and inclusive pool of employees, with varied range of approaches and perspectives are expected to meet both business expectations and the health needs of the society with more innovative ideas. Consequently, this deserves to be an organizational growth strategy, having a sharp competitive edge. It is mainly because, the initiative will uncover newer and unconventional pathways for providing greater access to affordable medicines, to save and improve the quality of many more lives. As the process rolls-out, it will keep gathering critical momentum, with support from all around and, more importantly, the enormous goodwill that the D&I strategy will attract from public, in general.

By: Tapan J. Ray  

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

Pharma’s Oncology Focus: Some Key Drivers With Pros And Cons For Patients

Posted on by
Reply

Just in the first ten days of the brand-new year – 2019, three important oncology focused acquisitions were announced by three top global pharma companies.

On January 03, 2019, Bristol-Myers Squibb announced that it will acquire Celgene for a hefty sum of USD 74 billion to be a leading Biopharma player, focusing on high-value innovative medicines. As reported by BioSpace on January 04, 2019, the BMS CEO said, the combined might of the two pipelines will create “the number one oncology franchise” for both solid and hematologic tumors.

Just four days thereafter, on January 7, 2019, at the J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference, Eli Lilly announced that it will acquire targeted cancer drug maker Loxo Oncology for USD 8 billion. This deal gives the company TRK inhibitor Vitrakvi – the first drug approved by the FDA to target tumors based on genetic abnormality, rather than the location of the cancer.

On June 08 2019, at the same J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference, GlaxoSmithKline CEO Emma Walmsley, reportedly said that GSK has agreed to acquire already approved PARP inhibitor Zejula as well as a range of pipeline assets valued USD 5 billion.It’s noteworthy that Walmsley announced the company’s new focus on oncology just the last year and has now almost doubled its immuno-oncology pipeline.

Even in the last year – 2018, a significant number of oncology focused Merger and Acquisitions (M&A) took place. The acquisition values are also interesting – ranging from a few-hundred million to billions of USD. In this article, I shall examine what could be the main drivers of this emerging trend with its pros and cons from the patients’ perspective, in general. As a brief backdrop, let me start with a few examples of such M&As in 2018.

Some oncology focused M&As in 2018:

Following are examples of some oncology focused acquisitions that took place in 2018:

  • In January 2018, Celgene Corporation, which has now been acquired by Bristol-Myers Squibb, announced theacquisition of Juno Therapeutics for about USD 9 billion. This deal came shortly after Celgene’s deal for Impact Biomedicines valuing USD 1.1 billion.
  • In late-January 2018, the biggest deals this year were by Sanofi. It acquired Waltham, Massachusetts-based Bioverativ for about USD 11.6 billion. Bioverativ was a spinoff by Biogen. About a week later, Sanofi bought Ghent, Belgium-based Ablynx for USD 4.8 billion.
  • In April 2018, Roche completed its acquisition of Flatiron Health, an oncology-specific digital health company for about USD 1.9 billion.
  • In the same month of April 2018, Shire sold its oncology business to France’s Servier for USD 2.4 billion.
  • In May 2018,  Janssen Biotech, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen Pharmaceuticals, announced that it was buying Rockville, Maryland-based BeneVir Biopharma, in a deal of more than USD 1 billion.

Thus, the question that follows: what could be the primary drivers of this trend?

The primary drivers:

In my view, the primary drivers for focus on the oncology segment by pharma and biotech companies is a combination of the following factors:

  • Leading cause of death: The incidence of cancer is fast increasing across the world, making it the leading cause of death, says 2018 report of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).
  • High incidence: Cancer burden rose to 18.1 million new cases, with 9.6 million cancer deaths in 2018. IARC report further highlighted, one in 5 men and one in 6 women worldwide develop cancer during their lifetime, and one in 8 men and one in 11 women die from the disease.
  • The need for new treatment approaches is increasing: Various types of cancers are getting more and more complex.Genetic and epigenetic alterations in tumor cell populations are generating heritable variation, requiring new drugs along with novel treatment approaches.
  • High price: According to Journal of Oncology Practice, the average cancer drug price for approximately 1 year of therapy or a total treatment duration was less than USD 10,000 before 2000. This had increased to USD 30,000 to USD 50,000 by 2005. In 2012, twelve of thirteen new drugs approved for cancer indications were priced above USD 100,000 per year of therapy. For example, Keytruda (Merck) was launched in the US in 2014 at a price of reportedly USD 12,500 for each patient monthly or USD 150,000 annually. The drug is expected to be 30 percent cheaper in India than the global prices.
  • Longer product exclusivity period: As is often reported, many of the newer high-priced cancer drugs are for very specific types of cancer, with virtually no real competition. Consequently, they generally enjoy the benefits of a longer price exclusivity period, even after patent expiry. Humira of AbbVie is one such example.

The strategy is paying rich dividend to pharma players:

That this strategy continues paying rich dividend to concerned pharma players, gets reflected on the therapy group-wise performance of the global drug industry. Today, the global cancer therapeutics segment assumed mind-boggling size in value term. It was estimated at USD 121 billion in 2017 and projected to reach USD 172.6 billion by 2022. The top 10 oncology drugs accounted for revenue of USD 54.48 billion in 2017. Celgene, which has just been acquired by Bristol-Myers Squibb, dominates the oncology market, with its best-selling product – Revlimid.

Successive launches of a large number of high-priced novel cancer drugs, has pushed the oncology segment in the top slot in therapy ranking. It is expected to remain this way, at least for some time, as June 2018 report of Evaluate Pharma forecasts that the oncology therapy area will maintain the top ranking in the 2017-2024 period.

IQVIA report on ‘Global Oncology Trends 2018’ ofMay 24, 2018 also reconfirms that the number of approved cancer therapies continues to rise, with 63 cancer drugs launching within the past five years.’ Illustrating the point further, the report highlights that global spending on cancer medicines keeps rising with therapeutic and supportive care use at USD133 billion globally in 2017, up from USD 96 billion in 2013.

Pros and Cons of this trend for patients:

Interestingly, this trend has both pros and cons for patients, almost in equal measure. Some of the important pros are, as follows:

  • Advancement of cancer treatments at an accelerated pace in recent years, is offering notable improvements in clinical benefit to patients, comments the above IQVIA report.
  • Consequently, cancer incidence and mortality have been declining with an increase in the survival rate, especially in the developed countries, such as the United States, in recent times.
  • Nevertheless, decreased incidence and improved survival rate have also been attributed to both – reductions in smoking, as well as advances in early detection and treatments.

Alongside, examples of some of major cons are also bothering many patients, such as:

  • The real benefits of newer and novel high-priced cancer drugs have not been felt by most people in the developing world, which constitutes the majority of the global population.
  • The GLOBOCAN 2018 database, accessible online as part of the IARC Global Cancer Observatory, also highlights that countries with lower Human Development Index (HDI) have a higher frequency of certain cancer types associated with poorer survival. This is mainly because access to timely diagnosis and effective treatment is less common.
  • Although, the new generation of treatment is transforming the field of cancer, yielding more cures and long-term remissions than ever before, the healthcare systems worldwide continue to struggle to deliver the benefits of these drugs to deserving patients.
  • As the above IQVIA report says, the list prices of new cancer drugs at launch have risen steadily over the past decade, and the median annual cost of a new cancer drug launched in 2017 exceeded USD 150,000, compared to USD 79,000 for the new cancer drugs launched in 2013.
  • If the affordability of drugs is not addressed soon, many people with cancer might not be able to reap the rewards of cutting-edge therapies.This concern was also expressed by Nature in an article titled, ‘Bringing down the cost of cancer treatment,’ published on March 07, 2018.

Thus,access to cancer treatment, mostly with modern cancer drugs, is becoming a major challenge in all countries, but much more acute in the developing nations. A special article titled, ‘Facing the Global Challenges of Access to Cancer Medication,’ published in the Journal of Global Oncology on March 28, 2018, also broached the question of affordability of modern anticancer medication and commented, “the financial challenge presented by the rising cost of care will create a barrier to its delivery.”

Conclusion:

On the above perspective, the emerging trend of large pharma and biotech companies’ focus on novel oncology drugs is an interesting one. The key drivers fueling this ascending trend are also understandable. However, a deep-stick analysis of pros and cons of its impact on patients indicate, it has helped patients in the developed world, significantly more than those in the developing world, with affordability being the primary issue.

The article titled, ‘Bringing down the cost of cancer treatment,’ published in Nature on March 07, 2018, also reconfirms the current situation eloquently. It asserted, there isn’t an iota of doubt that new generations of cancer drugs are transforming the field of cancer treatment, yielding long-term remissions and even cure – more than ever before. Nevertheless, while medicine’s ability to tackle tumors increases by manifold, patients and healthcare systems worldwide are struggling to deliver their benefits to most cancer patients.

To address this situation, some drug players did try out ‘tiered pricing’, while a few others announced – ‘patient assistance programs’. Unfortunately, none of these measures seem to have benefitted majority of deserving patients, materially. Thus, echoing the above article from Nature, I would emphasize, if the affordability issue of new cancer drugs is not effectively addressed soon, collectively by all stakeholders, a vast majority of cancer patient won’t be able to reap expected rewards from such cutting-edge therapies.

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.

Gamification in Pharma: Creates Engaging Patient Experience For Better Results

Posted on by
Reply

On January 03, 2019, media reports flashed – “A video game-based ‘digital medicine’ tool can help reduce symptoms in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention/deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).” This study was published in the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, confirming the feasibility and safety of the tool called Project: EVO, which delivers sensory and motor stimuli through an action video game experience.

This initiative reconfirms that technology is becoming a great enabler to provide integrated, comprehensive and cost effective approach in treating many diseases, particularly with ‘Digital Medicine.’ The above report on ‘Project EVO’ is an example of application of the concept of ‘gamification’ in digital medicine. Many consider ‘gamification’ as a game changer to create an engaging patient experience with added value. It makes patients getting involved in the disease-treatment process, especially for effective self-management of chronic disorders.

I shall focus on this area in today’s article, giving examples wherever available. However, let me start by recapitulating what is ‘gamification’ in the pharma industry.

Gamification: 

The Oxford dictionary defines ‘gamification’ as: ‘The application of typical elements of game playing (e.g. point scoring, competition with others, rules of play) to other areas of activity, typically as an online marketing technique to encourage engagement with a product or service.’ It further adds, ‘gamification is exciting because it promises to make the hard stuff in life fun.’

‘Gamification’ is assuming increasing importance, with disruptive digital innovations gradually becoming game changers in the pharma business. This is mainly because, it can deliver to a specific group of patients, doctors or other stakeholders exactly what they look for – with precision.

I suggested in my article, published in this blog on January 07, 2019 that pharma companies should facilitate self-management of chronicailments,not just for better outcomes, but also for improving the quality of patient engagement. To achieve this objective,‘gamification’ could play a remarkable role-such as disease awareness and prevention and when afflicted its desirable self-management. This has the potential to create a win-win situation between patients and a drug company.

This is so important, as ‘the old paradigm of the paternalistic model of medicine is now transforming into an equal level partnership between patients and professionals, aided and augmented by disruptive technologies. This comment was made in a study titled, ‘Digital health is a cultural transformation of traditional health care,’ published in mHealth on September 14, 2017.

‘Patient-doctor partnership is critical in the new paradigm:

One of the major ways to develop a partnership between the treating doctors along with the product/service providing pharma companies and patients is through mutually beneficial ‘patient engagement’ programs with added value.

That such programs can create a unique patient experience of better outcomes at a lesser cost, has already been established by a number of credible research studies. Taking a cue from quantum benefits that this initiative provides, many pharma companies are now making ‘patient engagement’ strategy as an integral part of their overall market access program, including the process of branding.

What does an effective patient engagement strategy involve?

An article titled, ‘Patient Engagement: A Key Element in Pharmaceutical Marketing Strategy,’ published in the IgeaHub on May 29, 2016 defines ‘patient engagement’ as a concept that combines a patient’s knowledge, skills, ability and willingness to manage his own health and care with interventions designed to increase activation and promote positive patient behaviors. This measure also involves offering relevant services to patients.

To assess the opportunity of patient services in the pharma industry, Accenture conducted a survey titled, ‘Pharma’s Growing Opportunity in Patient Services’, on 200+ pharma patient services executives, covering seven therapeutic areas – heart, lungs, brain, immune systems, bones, hormone/metabolism, and cancer. The study concluded,the future of patient services that requires patient engagement, is bright. It elaborated by saying, this approach offers pharmaceutical companies a tremendous opportunity – for those willing to invest in the right places and let patients know about them in the right way.

To move in this direction, ‘gamification’ is an efficient way for the pharma companies to follow. Let us see below how does ‘gamification’ work on the ground.

How does ‘gamification’ work?

According to the findings of Innovatemedtec, ‘gamification’ with health apps typically works in the following three ways:

  • Allowing users to share progress and results with their friends or other users of the service, creating a competitive spirit to elicit more or better use of the specific health app service.
  • Giving virtual gifts, such as badges, medals, stars during each stage of progress, generating a sense of achievement for greater patient motivation levels in disease monitoring and management.
  • Advanced medical health applications can provide real-time biofeedback with built-in sensors. Or using a storytelling approach and explaining health literature related to diagnoses, medical procedures and patient behavior.

Thus, the primary reasons for introducing ‘gamification’ in the pharma industry would be to improve the disease awareness and increasing patients’ motivation for self-management for mutual benefits.

Improves disease awareness and motivation for self-management:

The precise rationale for ‘gamification’ in the pharma industry was nicely articulated in the ‘M.Sc. Thesis titled, ‘Gamification in the Pharmaceutical Industry – Exploring how European Pharmaceutical Organizations can build and use Gamified Mobile Applications to Improve Relations with Patients.’ This was written by Nanna Birkedal and jointly delivered by the University of Stirling and Lund University.

It highlighted: “Patients and industry experts both argue that awareness is important; constant reminders about healthy habits are pivotal for an improved lifestyle. Patients furthermore need to be motivated to act upon this and actively implement the required lifestyle changes. If pharmaceutical organizations succeed in helping the patients with overcoming challenges related to their illness by motivating them to enact the needed lifestyle changes, it will increase the perceived trust towards their brand and thereby strengthen their relationship with the patients. This research argues that digital gamification is suited for this purpose, hence why it may be advantageous for organizations to incorporate digital gamification …”

Why and how to motivate patients for self-management of chronic disease?

As I said before, after proper diagnosis of a chronic ailment and charting out a medical treatment pathway, self-management of the disease by patients plays a critical role. Thus, the question arises, how to motivate patients and more importantly, keep patients motivated for engaging in self-management of such nature.

There is also a need for continuous improvement of the ‘gamification’ process for a long-term engagement of patients, leading to progressively better outcomes. Many examples of success with ‘gamification’ are available for chronic diseases, such as diabetes.

One of the metrics used in ‘gamification’ to help diabetic patients stick with a digital health platform, making it a higher priority in their daily lives, is to provide useful timely information on their disease condition. This metric may include informing the user about some tangible changes in their health risks due to the disease. For example: “Over the last month your effective glucose has reduced the risk of losing your eyesight by 10 percent.” Accordingly, the patients may earn points or badges for using the app and accomplishing certain important tasks.

In this way, gamification can immensely help self-management through behavioral changes, improving disease outcomes. As Healthcare in America also reiterates: ‘There is nothing more motivating than knowing your health is improving in real time.’

Another study, and two examples of ‘gamification’ in pharma:

Another study titled, ‘Gamification: Applications for Health Promotion And Health Information Technology Engagement’, published by ResearchGate arrived at an interesting conclusion. It reiterated: ‘Game-based approaches (gamification) can provide ideal strategies for health promotion, prevention, and self-management of chronic conditions. However, there is a need to clearly define components and uses of gamification in healthcare for increased patient engagement in health information technology.’

Elaborating the point further, the authors emphasized that many health/physical activity apps provide feedback in a clear and concise manner and in a variety of formats (e.g., graphs, text or icons). The available option to share the feedbacks on social networking sites allows for further engagement by individuals and adds additional motivation and encouragement in attaining users’ goals. However, it recommends more studies to explore and identify the suitability of ‘gamification’ for health in clinical settings.

There have been several instances of gamification efforts health care with powerful effects. Let me cite just two interesting illustrations from mobihealthnews, as follows:

Conclusion:

As available from various literature, such as Healthcare in America, there are enough well-verified testimony, indicating that patients are motivated by gamified elements.

Consequently, some major global pharmaceutical companies have started testing the water. For example, the Media Release of Roche dated June 30, 2017 announces, the company has acquired mySugr - an Austrian startup that offers gamified solutions for diabetes management in a fun way, both for children and adults. It, reportedly, has more than a million registered users in 52 countries and is available in 13 different languages. Post-acquisition, it will be an integral part of Roche’s new patient-centered digital health services in diabetes care.

Hence, ‘gamification’ in pharma carries potential to be a win-win strategy in creating engaging, motivating and a unique patient experience in self-management of chronic diseases, for better outcomes.

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.