Tag Archives: Thomas

Is Pharma Industry A Late Learner, Always?

Posted on by
Reply

Several upcoming concepts in the pharmaceutical industry are becoming buzzwords today. But, most of these were recommended by stalwarts several decades ago. Interestingly, the prevailing scenario is no different, even related to wide-scale adoption of a number of cutting-edge technologies, to squarely face the ongoing challenge of changing market dynamics. Various studies point out that other industries are making transformative use of these – to be on the same page with their customers, much faster.

Pharma is considered to be a late entrant in the digital space, too. It’s still not quite clear to many, the extent by which ‘Digitalization’ is transforming the way pharma industry functions – aiming at unleashing huge opportunities for value creation – from supply chain to manufacturing – right up to creating a unique customer experience. As this subject was well deliberated in the August 2016 article on McKinsey Digital, I am not going to delve into that area today.

Therefore, the question that comes up: Is pharma industry, in general, a late learner – always, to be in sync with its contemporary customers? For exploring this point, I shall focus mainly on four areas of current hypes in the pharma business, namely - ‘patient empowerment’, ‘patient-centricity’, ‘customer experience’ and ‘E-Patients’.

In this article, I shall dwell on this subject, ferreting out some critical recent findings on the relevance of these not so recent concepts in today’s perspective. Let me start by diving deep into the time capsule.

How old are these concepts?

Industry watchers may know that these are not new concepts, in any way. The relevance of ‘patient empowerment’, ‘patient-centricity’, ‘customer experience’ and ‘E-Patients’ in the drug industry has not unfolded today, neither are these new ideas. The American medical doctor - Thomas William ”Tom” Ferguson (July 8, 1943 – April 14, 2006) was an early advocate for ‘patient empowerment’.

Since 1975: “He urged patients to educate themselves and share knowledge with one another and urged doctors to collaborate with patients rather than command them. Predicting the Internet’s potential for disseminating medical information long before it became a familiar conduit, he was an early proponent of its use, terming laymen who did so – ‘E-Patients‘.”  

Technology follows a concept and not vice versa:

With ‘E-Patient’ terminology, Dr. Thomas Ferguson talked about empowered, engaged, equipped and enabled patients. I reckon, even after close to 45 years, most of the drug industry, is still not quite there – ‘Digitalization’ initiatives notwithstanding. This is because, technology follows a concept and not vice versa.

Why it’s so?

I reckon, this is primarily because, many stakeholders often don’t pay much importance to a critical fact, which is: ‘Patient expectations and needs can differ considerably from the aims and objectives of health care providers, at both the policy and delivery levels,’ and also by many drug companies. Still, most of these entities are yet to lap up this concept.

Is reviving focus on ‘Patient Centricity’ a realistic proposition today?

Several studies in this area have concluded, to be accepted by patients, the patient experience should be the key driver for the development of solutions.’ These include, medicines, devices, information, support programs and even digital apps. Among many others, one such study was published on March 28, 2017, in the SAGE Journals, titled, ‘Patient Centricity and Pharmaceutical Companies: Is It Feasible?’

The basic question of its feasibility would prompt: ‘Would this approach help pharma players to make enough profit with the drugs?’ While addressing this query, the researchers put across the following points that need to be seriously reflected on:

  • Profit is necessary. But, how drug companies make and use business ‘profit’ is more important for long-term business sustainability.
  • It requires a clear vision at the top of creating and delivering ‘customer value’ as patients will perceive, followed by a robust assertion of ‘Patient Centricity’ across the business domains.
  • This will help break out of the cycle of “recover costs of R&D – make a profit – invest in new drugs – make more profit.” The new ball game will be – profit through customer satisfaction – invest in new drugs for greater ‘customer value and more customer satisfaction’
  • Such commitments, in turn, will help generate not just reasonable profit, but credibility with external stakeholders – such as, patients, regulators, media, etc. – creating an invaluable reputation for the organization, as a future growth booster.

Since old practices have continued for very long, virtually unchanged, a legacy factor has now crept into the system, mostly as a retarding force.

A legacy issue to overcome:

As the above research article underscores: ‘Historically, the pharmaceutical industry’s role has been to develop the science and medicines for prevention or treatment of disease.’ Whereas, ‘Patient Centricity’ involves patients as stakeholders in this scientific process. It calls for an innovative mindset, whereby ‘the industry is challenged to engage and collaborate with patients when deciding the best course of action.’ This need is now palpable within the industry, at the long last. 

Palpable needs for a new focus on designing ‘healthcare solutions’:

With the shift in the environment around the industry and its stakeholders, including patients, are feeling the need to ferret out some old classic concepts for a new focus in designing various ‘healthcare solutions.’ For this purpose, as the above research article reiterated, a better understanding of ‘patient experience’ at critical points, in the course of the diagnosis and treatment of the disease, would help designing more effective ‘health care solutions’ for better patient outcomes.

The commercial necessity for better patient outcomes, merits ‘Patient Centricity’ at the core of the pharma business model, which, in turn, calls for a shift in the cultural mindset within the pharmaceutical industry. Such a shift would involve, among others:

  • Redefining the core strategy, organizational structure, processes and capabilities to focus on transparency and value creation for the patient.
  • A change from a disease-centered to a patient-centered strategy, and from a product-led to a patient-led development process.
  • Listening to and partnering with patients, and understanding the patient perspective, rather than simply inserting patient views into the established process.

Therefore, ‘patient-centric’ initiatives of any company should begin with the basic question: how can the company make a difference for patients?

The new realization: Compete better to win, neutralizing healthcare consumerism:

To better compete and win even in the midst of evolving healthcare consumerism, instead of adding fuel to it around the world, including India, a new book – ‘Making the Healthcare Shift: The Transformation to Consumer-Centricity,’ brings some contemporary ideas where, again, many old ideas seems to have been tested with a new perspective.

Interestingly, the content of this book is based on over 60 executive interviews with the biggest names in healthcare and a quantitative research study. Some of these names include leading academic institutions, such as, the Mayo Clinic, USCF Medical Center; big drug companies like Pfizer, Lilly and Novartis. The book reveals, while healthcare organizations have recognized the need to change to ‘Patient Centricity, they often don’t know where or how to begin.

To help healthcare organizations reinvent how even traditional pharma players engage with consumers in the new paradigm, the authors identify five shifts that pharma players can make to better compete and win in this evolving landscape of healthcare consumerism. 

Need to ‘reinvent the wheel’, is more than ever before!

To ascertain the above point, I shall paraphrase just a few – ‘Patient-Centric’ and ‘Customer Experience’ related areas of the book along with my own views to help you to come to your own logical conclusion:

  • To provide a holistic disease treatment solution, keeping the patients engaged along the entire journey in the disease treatment process, pharma players should bring ‘consumer experience’ at the core of the business model. As I also deliberated in this blog that: ‘Enhancing End-To-End Customer Experience’ is, therefore, considered by many astute pharma marketers, as a vital ingredient of pharma brand building exercise. In that article, I articulated, such initiatives should cover, all the ‘’touchpoints’ and ‘episodes.’ Where ‘touchpoints’ are spots of contact or interaction and ‘episodes’ focus on end-to-end design of a specific customer-need for an organization. Aligning management and the front line around the customer experience, is critical.
  • As things stand today, the entire journey through the disease diagnosis and treatment process, in the current healthcare ecosystem, remains fragmented. Mostly because, it involves many ‘touchpoints’ and ‘episodes,’ comprising of different health care entities. Providers’ inefficiencies, of various types, encountered by patients at different points of this journey often lead to their frustration, causing an unpleasant ‘customer experience.’ To achieve this objective, by effectively addressing the aforesaid common denominator for all – ‘Patient-Centricity,’ is of paramount importance. This entails, as stated before, integrated measures for listening to and partnering with patients, alongside, placing patients’ well-being at the core of all healthcare business initiatives. From this perspective, ‘patient-centricity’ based on customer insights,represents a holistic approach to provide the disease management solutions.
  • With rapid advancement in medical science, culminating into several breakthrough innovations, the world has stepped into a new era of disease treatment solution. Increasingly, ‘one size fits all’ type of population-centric treatment, is giving away a sizeable space for a new ‘patient-centric’ variety of the same. Moving towards this direction would necessitate pharma players, along with all health care organizations to acquire a deep insight on patients. The acquired insights must be based on in-depth analysis of a robust and contemporary sets of data, including demography, attitude towards health, treatment needs and preferred options available to the targeted audience.

This brings me back to where I started from. Dr. Thomas William ”Tom” Ferguson and maybe several others, as well, had recommended similar approaches over four and a half decade ago. We did not learn it then. But, while fighting against all odds, as the industry has been facing over some time, some companies are feeling the need of learning it now. Better late than never!

Conclusion:

It has been universally accepted that market dynamics keep changing in all industries, may be faster in some than others. Looking back, one can sense similar ongoing changes both within the pharma industry and the business and social and cultural environments outside, especially related to its stakeholders. When faster, proactive changes take place within the industry than outside, it delights the customers. Similarly, faster changes in the outside environment that industry fails to keep pace with – deliberately or otherwise, will invite strong headwind impeding growth of the business and even denting its reputation. Although, the former one is desirable, the latter prevails in most areas of pharma business. A Working Paper of the Harvard Business School wanted to understand ‘How do organizations learn?’ It found, among others:

  • Performance outcomes can be augmented, if one deliberately focuses on learning from experience accumulated in the past.
  • The competitive advantage of firms critically depends on the skills of individual contributors. Hence, the centrality of individual and organizational learning is a critical factor for competitiveness of any organization.

This brings us to the question, what is a learning organization. From many similar definitions of the same, let me quote the following one, as it is apt, simple and old enough for all to have learned: “A Learning Organization is the term given to a company that facilitates the learning of its members and continuously transforms itself.” (M. Pedler, J. Burgoyne and T. Boydell, 1997)

Keeping today’s deliberation in perspective, one may possibly conclude, quick individual learners, including the organizations, can offer better performance outcomes than late learners. As the pharma business is encountering a strong headwind for quite some time, it is up to the readers making out, what type of learner the industry, in general, is, and more importantly, why it is so?

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.

Is Drug Innovation As Critical As Access To Medicines For All? [Augmented By A Video]

Posted on by
Reply

To make important medicines available to all in a sustainable way, the renowned philosopher Thomas Pogge in this very interesting video clipping titled “Medicines For The 99 Percent” suggested the following three simple, yet critical, steps to effectively run the healthcare system of any nation with a cost-effective and patient-centric approach:

  • Access to important medicines for all
  • A robust drug innovation model to meet the unmet needs of patients
  • Transparent and efficient systems to make medicines affordable to all, eliminating wastage of all kinds

To translate this process into reality Pogge proposed an out-of-box model, not just to incentivize companies for drug innovation, but also to produce those drugs in a cost-effective way . In his submission, Pogge recommended a US$ 6 billion ‘Health Impact Fund’ to revolutionize the way medicines are developed and sold. He strongly argued that the value of an innovative drug should always be ascertained by its differential “Health Impact” on patients over the equivalent available generics in the respective disease areas.

As you will see in the video, the model is interesting and deserves wholehearted support from all stakeholders, despite possible resistance from some powerful quarters prompted by vested interests.

Drug innovation and access to medicines:

As the good old saying goes, “Health is Wealth”. When a person falls sick, regaining health is all-important. Medicines play a very critical role there, for all. In the ongoing battle against various types of diseases, addressing unmet needs of the patients is also equally important. For this reason, drug innovation plays just as critical a role.

However, it is now a well-known fact that medicines, as such, are not very expensive to manufacture on a relative yardstick. Abundant availability of cheaper generic medicines, post-patent expiry, with as much as  90 percent price erosion over the concerned patented drug price, would vindicate this point.

Current R&D model:

Astronomical mark-ups on the cost of goods for the innovative-patented drugs coming out of the current R&D model, restrict access to these medicines mostly to rich people of both poor and rich countries of the world, depriving majority of the have-nots. Although in an ideal situation, all these medications should be accessible to those who need them the most.

Is the model sustainable?

Innovator companies attribute ‘astronomical’ high prices of patented drugs to hefty R&D expenditure, which probably includes high cost of failures too. Unfortunately, despite ongoing raging debates, R&D expense details are still held very close to the chest by the innovator companies, with almost total lack of transparency. Many experts, therefore, believe that this opaque, skewed and unsustainable drug R&D model of the global pharma majors needs a radical makeover now, as you would yourself see by clicking on the ‘video clipping’, as mentioned above

To ensure full access to important drugs for all, there are other R&D or innovation models too. Unfortunately, none of those appears to be financially as lucrative to the innovator companies as the one that they are currently following, thus creating a challenging logjam in the inclusive process of drug innovation.

Are Pharmaceutical R&D expenses overstated?

Some experts in this area argue that pharmaceutical R&D expenses are overstated, as the real costs are much less.

An article titled “Demythologizing the high costs of pharmaceutical research”, published by the London School of Economics and Political Science in 2011 indicated that the total cost from the discovery and development stages of a new drug to its market launch was around US$ 802 million in the year 2000. This was worked out in 2003 by the ‘Tuft Center for the Study of Drug Development’ in Boston, USA.

However, in 2006 this figure increased by 64 per cent to US$ 1.32 billion, as reported by a large pharmaceutical industry association of the United States, though with dubious credibility as considered by many.

The authors of the above article had also mentioned that the following factors were not considered while working out the 2006 figure of US$ 1.32 billion:

▪   Tax exemptions that the companies avail for investing in R&D

▪   Tax write-offs that amount to taxpayers’ contributing almost 40 percent of the R&D cost

▪   Cost of basic research should not have been included as those are mostly undertaken       by public funded universities or laboratories

The article observed that ‘half the R&D costs are inflated estimates of profits that companies could have made, if they had invested in the stock market instead of R&D and include exaggerated expenses on clinical trials’.

“High R&D costs have been the industry’s excuses for charging high prices”:

In line with this deliberation, in the same article the authors reinforce the above point, as follows:

“Pharmaceutical companies have a strong vested interest in maximizing figures for R&D as high research and development costs have been the industry’s excuse for charging high prices. It has also helped generating political capital worth billions in tax concessions and price protection in the form of increasing patent terms and extending data exclusivity.”

The study concludes by highlighting that “the real R&D cost for a drug borne by a pharmaceutical company is probably about US$ 60 million.”

Should Pharmaceutical R&D move away from the traditional model?

Echoing philosopher Thomas Pogge’s submission, another critical point to ponder today is:

Should the pharmaceutical R&D now move away from its traditional comfort zone of expensive one company initiative to a much less charted frontier of sharing drug discovery involving many players?

If this overall collaborative approach gains broad acceptance and then momentum sooner, with active participation of all concerned, it could lead to substantial increase in R&D productivity at a much lesser expenditure, eliminating wastage by reducing the cost of failures significantly, thus benefiting the patients community at large.

Choosing the right pathway in this direction is more important today than ever before, as the R&D productivity of the global pharmaceutical industry, in general, keeps going south and that too at a faster pace.

Making drug innovation sustainable: 

Besides Thomas Pogge’s model with ‘Health Impact Fund’ as stated above, there are other interesting drug R&D models too. In this article, I shall focus on two examples:

Example I:

A July 2010 study of Frost & Sullivan reports: “Open source innovation increasingly being used to promote innovation in the drug discovery process and boost bottom-line”.

The concept underscores the urgent need for the global pharmaceutical companies to respond to the challenges of high cost and low productivity in their respective R&D initiatives, in general.

The ‘Open Innovation’ model assumes even greater importance today, as we have noted above, to avoid huge costs of R&D failures, which are eventually passed on to the patients again through the drug pricing mechanism.

‘Open Innovation’ model, as they proposed, will be most appropriate to even promote highly innovative approaches in the drug discovery process bringing many brilliant scientific minds together from across the world.

The key objective of ‘Open Innovation’ in pharmaceuticals is, therefore, to encourage drug discovery initiatives at a much lesser cost, especially for non-infectious chronic diseases or the dreaded ailments like Cancer, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer, Multiple Sclerosis, including many neglected diseases of the developing countries, making innovative drugs affordable even to the marginalized section of the society.

Android smart phones with huge commercial success are excellent examples of ‘Open Source Innovation’. So, why not replicate the same successful model of inclusive innovation in the pharmaceutical industry too?

Example II - “Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP)” initiative:

This laudable initiative has come to the fore recently in he arena of collaborative R&D, where 10 big global pharma majors reportedly decided in February 2014 to team up with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) of the United States in a ‘game changing’ initiative to identify disease-related molecules and biological processes that could lead to future medicines.

This Public Private Partnership (PPP) for a five-year period has been named as “Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP)”. According to the report, this US federal government-backed initiative would hasten the discovery of new drugs in cost effective manner focusing first on Alzheimer’s disease, Type 2 diabetes, and two autoimmune disorders: rheumatoid arthritis and lupus. The group considered these four disease areas among the largest public-health threats, although the span of the project would gradually expand to other diseases depending on the initial outcome of this project.

“A Social Brain Is a Smarter Brain”: 

As if to reinforce the concept, a recent HBR Article titled “A Social Brain Is a Smarter Brain” also highlighted, “Open innovation projects (where organizations facing tricky problems invite outsiders to take a crack at solving them) always present cognitive challenges, of course. But they also force new, boundary-spanning human interactions and fresh perspective taking. They require people to reach out to other people, and thus foster social interaction.” This articulation further reinforces the relevance of a new, contemporary and inclusive drug innovation model for greater patient access.

Conclusion:

Taking these points into perspective, I reckon, there is a dire need to make the process of offering innovative drugs at affordable prices to all patients absolutely robust and sustainable as we move on.

Philosopher Thomas Pogge, in his above video clipping, has also enunciated very clearly that all concerned must ensure that medications get to those who need them the most. He has also shown a win-win pathway in form of creation of a “Health Impact Fund’ to effectively address this issue. There are other inclusive, sustainable and cost effective R&D models too, such as Open Innovation and Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP), to choose from.

That said, a paradigm shift in the drug innovation model can materialize only when there will be a desire to step into the uncharted frontier, coming out of the comfort zone of much familiar independent money spinning silos of drug innovation. Dove tailing business excellence with the health interest of all patients, dispassionately, would then be the name of the game.

Bringing this transformation sooner is extremely important, as drug innovation would continue to remain as critical as access to important medicines for all, in perpetuity.

However, to maintain proper checks and balances between drug innovation and access to medicines for all, the value of an innovative drug should always be ascertained by its differential ‘Health Impact’ on patients over equivalent available generics in that disease area and NOT by how much money, including the cost of R&D failures, goes behind bringing such drugs to the market, solely driven by commercial considerations.

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.