Increasing Consumerism: A Prime Mover For Change in Healthcare

Posted on June 11, 2018 by Tapan Ray

Increasing ‘consumerism’ has already become a strong prime mover to reckon with, even in healthcare, including the pharma industry, across the world. Patients’ longing for better participative treatment experience at an affordable cost, has started gathering momentum as a major disrupting force in the healthcare space of India, as well.

In this article, which discusses a different topic from what I said in my last article that I will write this week, let us try to fathom today’s reality in a fast expanding area, primarily by connecting the emerging dots, both globally and locally. However, before doing so, it won’t be a bad idea to recapitulate, in the general term, what exactly is ‘consumerism’ – and then looking at it in context of healthcare.

What it really means?

The Oxford dictionary defines ‘consumerism’ as: ‘The protection or promotion of the interests of consumers.’ As an example, it says, ‘The impact of consumerism emerges as a factor of stabilization, as do the different understandings of stability and stabilization.’ Whereas, consumerism in healthcare is an assertion of patients’ right to be a key participant in their healthcare decision making process. As aptly put by Healthcare Success: “It is a movement from the ‘doctor says/patient does’ model, to a ‘working partnership’ model.”

Should pharma strategic marketing process, not take care of it?

When the above question is asked differently as: If the pharma strategic marketing process is effective, why is healthcare consumerism increasing across the world, including India? To find an answer to this, let’s go the basic of the definition of ‘marketing’. American Marketing Association (AMA) defines it as: ‘‘Marketing is the activity, set of institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large.’ A more specific definition of pharma marketing (Olszewska A. Strategic management in pharmaceutical marketing. Chemik 2006: S91-4.)is: ‘A management process that serves to identify and meet patients’ needs in a profitable way.’

This prompts the key question, if the above basic process of ‘marketing’ is followed by the pharma industry as it ought to be, why should there be an increasing trend of ‘consumerism’ in Healthcare, in general, and the pharma industry in particular?

The major drivers:

NRC Health through various surveys, has captured the major drivers of consumerism in healthcare. I am listing below a few of those, as I understand, just as examples:

Significant increase in health care cost to payers, including the patients.
Consumers are the fastest growing payer in the industry.
They foot most costs of their health premiums and out-of-pocket co-pays.
As consumers have more money at risk, they want to get more engaged with their own treatment decision for the best value for money.
One-way monologue for treatment doesn’t not enough for most patients.
3 of 10 patients defer necessary treatment to avoid self-confusion and expense.
4 out of 5 find difficult to compare costs Vs. drug quality.
3 out of 4 feel their health care decisions are the most important and expensive
Patients face difficulty to compare cost, quality, and access to physicians.

In my view, sooner than later, the emerging situation in India will also be no different, especially with its increasing digitally empowered population.

Is pharma marketer cognizant of this emerging trend?

It will be unfair to make any sweeping statement that they are not. This is based on what I see and experience around, mostly in the global arena. But locally, although significant publicity of a large number of pharma training programs appear in the social media, most of these are apparently based on the ‘buzz of the time’.

Besides a few sporadic exceptions, generally the Indian pharma marketers still appear to believe in the same age-old model – what the ‘doctor says/patient does’. As a result, increasing consumerism keep haunting the industry – the Government often responds – mostly with sound bites, though, the industry keeps lamenting on the ‘ease of doing business’ or the lack of it, in India. The much avoidable cycle continues.

A prime mover for change in healthcare:

Increasing health care consumerism is a prime mover to usher in significant changes in this space. These changes are mostly unexpected and disruptive, but usually good for the patients. I shall illustrate this point here with just two examples, out of many. The first one comes from three global corporate head honchos of unrelated business, aimed at their own employees. And the other is related to all patients with the initiative coming from within the healthcare industry, including pharma.

The first example of an unexpected move comes from the announcement of three corporate behemoths – Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway and JPMorgan Chase, saying they would form an independent health care company for their employees in the United States. This was reported by The New York Times (NYT) on January 30, 2018. The alliance signals how frustrated American businesses are not just with their health care system, but also rapidly spiraling cost of medical treatment – the report said. The NYT also quoted Warren E. Buffett of Berkshire Hathaway as saying:“The ballooning costs of health care act as a hungry tapeworm on the American economy.”

The initial focus of the new venture, as announced, will be on “technology solutions” that will provide U.S. employees and their families with “simplified, high-quality and transparent healthcare at a reasonable cost.” They also plan to “bring their scale and complementary expertise to this long-term effort.Nevertheless, it is unclear how extensively the three partners would overhaul their employees’ existing health coverage to reduce healthcare cost and improving outcomes for patients. They may simply help workers find a local doctor, steer employees to online medical advice or use their muscle to negotiate lower prices for drugs and procedures. While the alliance will apply only to their employees, these corporations are so closely watched that whatever successes they have could become models for other businesses – NYT commented.

The second examplecomes from an article, titled ‘Consumerism in Health Care’, published in NEJM Catalyst on January 11, 2018. It says, another important change that is a direct outcome of the consumerism of health care is personalization of care to facilitate health outcomes. However, ultimate personalization, that is, a “one-to-one relationship” between a company and an individual appear increasingly possible with the data and analytics that are now within the reach of many global pharma players, the paper says. However, most Indian pharma players, I reckon, still lack wherewithal that’s required to build capabilities to deliver high degree of personalization for patients.

As a result, pharma industry, in general, is still charting in the primary stages of delivering personalization, although, progress made by some global players in this direction is quite encouraging.

Consumerism in healthcare to gather momentum in India:

A September 2016 paper, titled ‘Re-engineering Indian health care’, published jointly by FICCI and EY points to this direction. The results of their survey done as a part of this study indicates, the aspirations of the middle and upper classes are evolving and their demands for convenience, participation and transparency in the health care delivery process are indicative of the shift from being a docile patient to an informed “health consumer.”

Thus, it is irrefutable today that digitally empowered patients are fast increasing, even in India. This is fueled by rapid expansion of broadband Internet in the country – a bottomless source of information. In this scenario, would the general pharma marketing assumption in India - what the ‘doctor says/patient does’, still yield results? Indian pharma marketers may need to possibly do some crystal gazing in this area – sooner the better.

Conclusion:

Accepting the reality of increasing consumerism in the healthcare space, both globally and locally, pharma players, especially in India, need to clear all clutter in the pathway to reach out and directly interact with their end-customers – the patients, aiming at improving clinical outcomes, the way patients would want – individually or in a cluster.

In a nutshell, what do patients want through increasing consumerism: Personal and meaningful involvement in their healthcare decision making process, based on requisite credible information from independent expert sources. Thus, what pharma the players should gear up to be: Cultivating a truly patient-centric approach in their business. And, there lies the real challenge for many in the industry, as it will mean all marketing and related organizational decisions will revolve around in-depth understanding of the patient’s mindset, along with their associated needs, want and health aspirations.

While moving towards this direction, providing personalized care by leveraging optimally selected modern technological platforms, will be a cutting-edge tool for pharma business excellence and achieving sustainable all-round growth – over a long period of time. As I see it, increasing consumerism will continue to remain a prime mover for unexpected, but welcoming changes in the healthcare space, at least for a medium term. It is to be taken rather seriously, with as much care as it deserves.

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.

Creating A ‘Virtuous Cycle’ Through Patient Reach and Care

Posted on April 9, 2018 by Tapan Ray

As many would know, in the strategic marketing process of any product including patented and generic drugs crafty product differentiation plays a critical role.

This strategic process of creating a competitive edge with unique product differentials is necessary. It helps perceiving a product more attractive to the target audience, against its competitors. When done effectively, the product fetches a greater share of mind for usage, achieving higher levels of top of mind recall, and, of course, a price premium.

In pharma, the traditional brand differentiation revolves around delivering cutting-edge values, skimming through the intrinsic product features and benefits. In India, which is predominantly a branded generic market, the local pharma marketers almost routinely keep trying to toe this line.

As I said before, some of them often vehemently argue in favor of maintaining a status quo in this area. It could probably be due to professional discomfort in venturing out of their respective comfort zones.

In the current pharma marketing environment, especially in India, finding the right answer to a not-so-easy-to-reply question may trigger a disruptive change in the traditional, or virtually routine marketing practices. This is widely considered a prevailing normal of date, and generally includes ‘features and benefits oriented product differentiation.’

In this article, I shall dwell on this important area, picking a thread from this simple, but a difficult-to-answer question.

The question:

This question goes like this: ‘How does a pharma marketer conceptualize product features and benefits oriented differential values, when there are virtually no clinically significant differentials between the competing products?’ There would possibly be no credible answers, justifying this practice.

Are branded generic sales mostly driven by contentious factors?

This query is more relevant in a branded generic market, such as India. Yet, pharma marketers keep following routinely the traditional methods in this area. As many say, actual product sales are driven by mostly by those critical factors, which are contentious and are being fiercely debated within the country, even today.

Pharma needs more extrinsic differentiation rather than intrinsic:

In the midst of an evolving new value expectation of pharma consumers, the market access strategy of the industry marketers must also evolve, keeping at least a step ahead of the former. This would help in delighting the customers, by offering them something meaningful, well before they start expecting the same. Thus, it makes me believe, a time has come to make the extrinsic factors, such as patient experience or delight, the center piece of product differentiation, weaving around its intrinsic qualities.

Many global companies have already started acting in this area – creating a whole new experience of care and relief for the patients, with new marketing models delivering differential product values to the target groups. Similar steps can successfully be taken even where there are no clinically significant differentials between the competing products.

Greater participation of consumers in treatment choices:

The information revolution in the world, mainly empowered by the Internet-based platforms – social or otherwise, is enabling many consumers to be partners in the disease treatment choices along with the doctors. In India too, it has started happening – slowly, but surely.

Those consumers, both in urban and mostly in the rural India, who won’t have any direct access to such information, ‘word of mouth’ enlightenment received from others would have a somewhat compensatory effect. Thus, the patients and their near and dear ones will have multiple treatment choices to choose from. In my view, this situation would gain a critical mass – much faster than what the current trend suggests. There won’t be any surprises, if this change assumes a snowballing effect, with modern technology being the key catalyst.

The current attitude could be counterproductive:

In this dynamic situation, any arrogance or ignorance of pharma marketers nurturing a seemingly ‘perennial’ conviction that ‘Indian pharma market and the patients are different’, could indeed be grossly counterproductive. This group of people seems to form a majority, today.

However, it is great to notice that some young Indian pharma professionals with an agile mindset and cerebral power, are thinking differently. They are not just keenly observing the ‘dots’, but also capturing, connecting and mapping the changing needs of the patients.

Their fingers are always on the pulse – concentrating more on strategizing extrinsic differentiation of products rather than remaining in the cocoon of the intrinsic ones. This quest to create an unchallenged and difficult to match market-space, will be essential in gaining the competitive cutting edge, as we move on.

Creating a virtuous cycle:

The focus of a pharma player in creating an extrinsic product differential edge, in pursuit of delivering the value of unique consumer experience, would in turn help enhancing the company reputation. This would, consequently, add value in creating an extrinsic product differential edge – thus, completing a ‘Virtuous Cycle’. It is generally caused by ‘complex chains of events that reinforce themselves through a feedback loop.’

A study on the ‘Impact of Corporate Reputation on Brand Differentiation’, has also established the ‘influence of company reputation, or what is often referred to as corporate reputation on branding strategy and producing intangible asset for different industries…’ This study is considered a pioneering attempt to measure the impact of corporate reputation on brand differentiation strategy.

Conclusion:

Today, especially in the marketing process of branded generic drugs, Indian marketers keep following a system that creates a sequence of reciprocal cause and effect, in which different elements of this overall activity intensify and aggravate each other, leading inexorably to a worsening of the situation. The Oxford dictionary defines this situation as a ‘Vicious Cycle.’

It’s not quite easy to come out of it, extricating the involved players from caustic remarks and allegations of indulging into contentious sales activities, if not blatant ‘marketing malpractices’. Nevertheless, breaking this mold is a ‘must do’ requirement, as many industry watchers believe.

This is because, if one wants to build a company for sustainable business excellence, it has to follow the principles of a ‘Virtuous Cycle’. Otherwise, it could threaten the very survival of the business, as we have witnessed several such instances in India, involving pharma companies. Several global pharma players are now trying hard to create a ‘Virtuous Cycle’, through well-researched strategic initiatives of patient reach and care.

To face this challenge of change squarely, Indian pharma marketers may also wish to focus on extrinsic differentiation of products, rather than intrinsic ones, as is mostly being done today, routinely. This course correction, I reckon, would play a ‘make or mar’ role in the pharma business, eventually. The passion to create a relatively unchallenged and difficult to match market space around patients, will be essential in gaining the requisite competitive advantage – giving shape to the much desired ‘Virtuous cycle’, as we move on.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Providing Unique Patient Experience – A New Brand Differentiator

Posted on March 5, 2018 by Tapan Ray

“Pharma industry, including the patients in India are so different from other countries. Thus, any strategic shift from conventional pharma brand marketing approach – going beyond doctors, won’t be necessary.”

The above mindset is interesting and may well hold good in a static business environment. But, will it remain so when ‘information enabled’ consumer behavior is fast-changing?

“Shall cross the bridge when we come to it” – is another common viewpoint of pharma marketers.

Many might have also noted that such outlooks are not of just a few industry greenhorns. A wide spectrum of, mostly industry-inbred marketers – including some die-hard trainers too, subscribe to it – very strongly.

Consequently, the age-old pharma marketing mold remains intact. Not much effort is seen around to reap a rich harvest out of the new challenge of change, proactively. The Juggernaut keeps moving, unhindered, despite several storm signals.

Against this backdrop, let me discuss some recent well-researched studies in the related field. This is basically to understand how some global pharma companies are taking note of the new expectations of patients and taking pragmatic and proactive measures to create a unique ‘patient experience’ with their drugs.

Simultaneously, I shall try to explore briefly how these drug companies are shaping themselves up to derive the first-mover advantage, honing a cutting edge in the market place. This is quite unlike what we generally experience in India.

As I look around:

When I look around with a modest data mining, I get increasingly convinced that the quality of mind of pharma marketers in India needs to undergo a significant change in the forthcoming years. This is because, slowly but surely, value creation to provide unique ‘patient experience’ in a disease treatment process, will become a critical differentiator in the pharma marketing ball game. Taking prime mover advantage, by shaping up the change proactively for excellence, and not by following the process reactively for survival, would separate the men from the boys in India, as well.

Patient experience – a key differentiator:

A recent report titled, “2017 Digital Trends in Healthcare and Pharma”, was published by Econsultancy in association with Adobe. This study is based on a sample of 497 respondents working in the healthcare and pharma sector who were among more than 14,000 digital marketing and eCommerce professionals from all sectors. The participants were from countries across EMEA, North America and Asia Pacific, including India.

Regarding the emerging scenario, the paper focuses mainly on the following areas:

Pharma companies will sharpen focus on the customer experience to differentiate themselves from their competitors.

‘The internet of things (IoT)’ – the rapidly growing Internet based network of interconnected everyday use computing devices that are able to exchange data using embedded sensors, has opened new vistas of opportunity in the pharma business. Drug players consider it as the most exciting prospect for 2020.

Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR) have started filling critical gaps in pharma and healthcare technologies and systems. Their uses now range from training doctors in operating techniques to gamifying patient treatment plans. Over 26 percent of respondents in the study see the potential in VR and AR as the most exciting prospect for 2020.

Commensurate digital transformation of pharma industry is, therefore, essential.

Prompts a shift from marketing drugs to marketing outcomes:

The above study also well underscores a major shift – from ‘marketing drugs and treatments’ – to ‘marketing outcome-based approaches and tools’, both for prevention and treatment of illnesses. This shift has already begun, though many Indian pharma marketers prefer clinging on to their belief – ‘Indian pharma market and the patients are different.’

If it still continues, there could possibly be a significant business impact in the longer-term future.

Global companies have sensed this change:

Realizing that providing a unique experience to patients during the treatment process will be a key differentiator, some global companies have already started acting. In this article I shall highlight only one recent example that was reported in March 01, 2018.

Reuters in an article on that day titled, “Big pharma, big data: why drugmakers want your health records,” reported this new trend. It wrote, pharma players are now racing to scoop up patient health records and strike deals with technology companies as big data analytics start to unlock a trove of information about how medicines perform in the real world. This is critical, I reckon, to provide a unique treatment experience to the patients.

A recent example:

Vindicating the point that with effective leverage of this powerful tool, drug manufacturers can offer unique value of their medicines to patients, on February 15, 2018, by a Media Release, Roche announced, it will ‘acquire Flatiron Health to accelerate industry-wide development and delivery of breakthrough medicines for patients with cancer.’ Roche acquired Flatiron Health for USD 1.9 billion.

New York based Flatiron Health – a privately held healthcare technology and services company is a market leader in oncology-specific electronic health record (EHR) software, besides the curation and development of real-world evidence for cancer research.

“There’s an opportunity for us to have a strategic advantage by bringing together diagnostics and pharma with the data management. This triangle is almost impossible for anybody else to copy,” said Roche’s Chief Executive Severin Schwan, as reported in a December interview. He also believes, “data is the next frontier for drugmakers.”

Conclusion:

Several global pharma companies have now recognized that providing unique patient experience will ultimately be one of the key differentiators in the pharma marketing ballgame.

Alongside, especially in many developed countries, the drug price regulators are focusing more on outcomes-based treatment. Health insurance companies too, have started looking for ‘value-based pricing,’ even for innovative patented medicines.

Accordingly, going beyond the product marketing, many drug companies plan to focus more on outcomes-based marketing. In tandem, they are trying to give shape to a new form of patient expectation in the disease prevention and treatment value chain, together with managing patient expectations.

Such initiatives necessitate increasing use advanced data analytics by the pharma marketers to track overall ‘patient experience’ – against various parameters of a drug’s effectiveness, safety and side-effects. This would also help immensely in the customized content development for ‘outcomes-based marketing’ with a win-win intent.

Providing unique ‘patient experience’ is emerging as a new normal and a critical brand differentiator in the global marketing arena. It will, therefore, be interesting to track how long the current belief – ‘Pharma industry and the patients in India are so different from other countries’, can hold its root on the ground, firmly. Or perhaps will continue till it becomes a necessity for the very survival of the business.

By: Tapan J. Ray

How Relevant Is A Pharma Brand Name To Patients?

Posted on February 26, 2018 by Tapan Ray

Are brand names necessary for medicines? Well – its’s a contentious issue, at least, as on date. It becomes the subject of a raging debate when the same question is slightly modified to: – Are brand names necessary for prescription drugs?

The current reality is, almost all pharma companies believe, and have been following this practice. This has been happening for decades, regardless of the fact that unlike other branded non-pharma products, each and every drug also carries another specific name – the generic name. Which is why, questions are often raised, why can’t drugs be prescribed only in generic names by the doctors?

Before I proceed further, let me recapitulate the definition of a ‘brand’. One of the most comprehensive definitions of a brand is: Unique design, sign, symbol, words, or a combination of these that identifies a product and differentiates it from its competitors. It helps create a level of credibility, quality, and satisfaction in the consumer’s mind, by standing for certain benefits and value. And, the creative marketing practices followed in this process is termed as ‘branding’. Keeping this at the center, in this article, let me try to arrive at a relevant perspective on this subject.

The arguments in favor:

Votaries of pharma branding believe that a pharma brand helps establish an emotional connect with the consumers on various parameters, including quality, efficacy, safety and reliability. This is expected to establish a preferential advantage of a brand over its competitors. Quoting the ‘father of advertising’ David Ogilvy, some of these proponents relate the outcome of branding to offering ‘intangible sum of a product’s attributes’ to its consumers, and also prospective consumers.

Entrepreneur India puts across such favorable outcome of ‘branding’ very candidly, which is also applicable to branding medicines – both patented and generic ones. It says, “Consistent, strategic branding leads to a strong brand equity, which means the added value brought to your company’s products or services that allows you to charge more for your brand than what identical, unbranded products command.”

The general belief within the pharma industry is that, ‘branding’ facilitates doctors in choosing and prescribing medicines to patients, especially in those situations where the choices are many. Aficionados of pharma product branding argue, that to save time, doctors usually select those top of mind products, which they are familiar with and feel, can serve the purpose well. This belief prompts the necessity to go all out for ‘branding’ by the pharma companies, even when the process is an expensive one.

Where pharma ‘branding’ is necessary:

There are a few old publications of the 1980’s, which claim that studies based on human psychology have found that medicines with brand names can have a better perceived impact on the actual effectiveness of ‘Over the Counter (OTC)’ medications. One of the examples cited was of aspirin.

Be that as it may, the relevance of branding for OTC pharmaceutical products is undeniable, where a medicinal product is generally treated just as any other Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) goods. Establishing an emotional connect of OTC brands with consumers is, therefore, considered an important process to create a preferential perceived advantage over its competitors.

There is no well-laid out legal or procedural pathway, as yet, for pharma OTC brands in India. No ‘Direct to Consumer (DTC) promotion is allowed in the country for Schedule H and Schedule X drugs – the only exceptions being Ayurvedic proprietary medicines and for homeopathy drugs. That said, the question continues to haunt, how relevant is branding for prescription drugs – now?

Relevance of ‘branding’ for prescription drugs:

The juggernaut of ‘branding prescription drugs’, riding mostly the wave of vested interests – of many hues and color, has been made to be perceived as necessary to ensure drug quality and safety for patients. It continues to move on, up until today, even for highly specialized prescription drugs. Nonetheless, some initiatives are visible from some Governments to gradually shift this contentious paradigm.

This move has been catalyzed by a blend of changing times with changing expectations of a large number of patients. They want to be an integral part in their treatment decisions, receive more personalized healthcare from both doctors and pharma companies. Patients, ultimately, want to feel confident that they’re receiving the best treatment – says a fresh study.

A number of other research papers also confirm that, a virtually static bar of patients’ expectations, in the disease treatment process – either for themselves or their near and dear ones, is slowly but surely gaining height, measurably. For better outcomes, patients have started expecting new types of services both from their doctors and the drug manufacturers. This process begins, even before a final decision is taken in the treatment process. As this paradigm shifts, pharma players would be significantly impacted – in several parameters.

Fast expanding digital empowerment options for all, across the world, is expediting this process further, including India. Placing oneself in the midst of it, one may ponder – how relevant is pharma branding today, as is being highlighted by many, since long.

In my view, a part of the answer to the above question arguably lies in a study titled, “Product Launch: The Patient Has Spoken”. The Key findings from the survey that covered 8,000 patients from three generations in the US, the UK, Germany and France, were published by ‘Accenture Life Sciences’ in January 2018. The research reveals how these patients evaluate and select new treatments in eight therapeutic areas (immune system, heart, lungs, brain, cancer, hormone/ metabolism and eye disease) across three generations, spanning across – Baby boomers, Generation X and Millennials.

Brands don’t matter to most patients…outcomes do:

69 percent of patients said, the benefits of the product are more important to them than the brand of the product. The four top factors influencing patients’ while making decisions about their healthcare are listed in the report as:

The doctor/ physician relationship: 66 percent
The patient’s ability to maintain their current lifestyle: 55 percent
Patients’ ease of access to health care they’ll need: 53 percent
Patients’ financial situation / ability to pay: 51 percent. When this is read with another finding where, 48 percent of patients believe that their doctors discuss the whole range of product options with them, a more interesting scenario emerges.

Further, lack of knowledge about the treatments available, as expressed by 42 percent of patients obviously indicate, pharma players’ intent to better inform patients by educating the doctors through brand promotion is not working. Interestingly, brand loyalty or popularity appeared relatively unimportant, ranking twelfth out of 14 influencing factors. Just 25 percent of patients characterized themselves as having a strong affinity with brands in a healthcare setting – the above report revealed.

Could there be an alternative approach?

An effective ‘branding’ exercise should lead to creating a ‘brand loyalty’ for any product. For pharma companies, doctors’ brand loyalty should lead to more number of its brand prescriptions. This expectation emanates from the idea that the prescription brand will represent something, such as quality, trust, assured relief, or may well be anything else. That means pharma product ‘branding’ is primarily aimed at the medical profession.

In an alternative approach to the current practice, an article titled, “From Managing Pills to Managing Brands”, published sometime back in the March-April 2000 issue of the Harvard Business Review (HBR), finds its great relevance, even today. It says, pharma companies can retain the loyalty of customers by building a franchise around specific therapeutic areas based on a focused approach to R&D. In other words, their corporate brand can replace individual drug brands. For example, a doctor looking for a treatment for – say asthma, would look for the latest GlaxoSmithKline medicines. Let me hasten to add, I used this example just to illustrate a point. This may appear as a long shot to some. Nonetheless, it would significantly reduce the cost of marketing, and subsequently the cost of a drug to patients. Incidentally, I also wrote about the relevance of ‘Corporate Branding’ in this Blog on June 15, 2015.

Conclusion:

With this fast-emerging backdrop, the Accenture Study raises an important issue to this effect. It wonders, whether the expenses incurred towards branding medicines, especially, during product launch be significantly reduced and be made more productive?

Illustrating the point, the report says, in 2016, the US pharmaceutical and healthcare industry alone spent US$ 15.2 billion in marketing. To earn a better business return, could a substantial part of this expenditure be reallocated to other programs that matter more to patients, such as access to patient service programs, and creating ‘Real-World Evidence (RWE)’ data that can document improved health outcomes, particularly those that matter to patients?

Well-crafted pharma branding and other associated initiatives, targeted predominantly to the medical profession, may make a doctor emotionally obligated to prescribe any company’s specific brands, for now. However, in the gradually firming-up ‘patient outcomes’-oriented environment, where patients want to participate in the treatment decision making process, will it remain so?

Dispassionately thinking, to most patients, a brand is as good or bad as the perceived value it delivers to them in the form of outcomes. Or, in other words, prescription pharma brands may not even matter to most of them, at all, but the outcomes will be. Hopefully, before it is too late pharma players would realize that, especially the well-informed patients are becoming co-decision makers in choosing the drug that a doctor will prescribe to them. If not, the current targeted process of pharma prescription drug branding, may lose its practical relevance, over a period of time.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Emerging Role of Digital Pathology in Cancer

Posted on January 1, 2018 by Tapan Ray

Dear readers, an unlocked door awaiting all of us with tons of opportunities as we log out of 2017 and log in to 2018. Let’s grab those, bringing changes and smile in many lives. Happy New Year

Cancer is now a leading cause of death worldwide. Every year, across the world 8.2 million people die from cancer. As the World Health Organization (W.H.O) estimates, deaths from this deadly disease will continue to rise, reaching over 13.1 million in 2030.

W.H.O flags that two-thirds of these deaths occur in low and middle-income countries. More than 50 percent of cancer deaths could have been prevented through awareness campaigns, or could have been effectively addressed through expert screening, early diagnosis and affordable treatment.

From this perspective, ‘digital pathology’ offers an immense potential to make a significant difference in the lives of many, who are either high risk individuals, or actually suffering from life threatening ailments. In this article, I shall try to illustrate the above point, in simple language, citing the emerging role of ‘digital pathology’ in cancer, as an example.

Incidence of cancer in India:

W.H.O reports that presently in India, cancer is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. This is vindicated by the 2016 Press Release of the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) stating that, the total number of new cancer cases was expected to be around 1.45 million in 2016, and the figure is likely to reach nearly 1.73 million new cases in 2020.

ICMR expected over 736,000 people to succumb to the disease in 2016 while the figure was estimated to shoot up to 880,000 by 2020. The data also revealed that only 12.5 percent of patients come for treatment in early stages of the disease. Another report estimated that around 2.5 million individuals in India are living with the cancer.

Launch of cancer screening program:

Realizing the increasing incidence of cancer, ‘the National Program for the Prevention and Control of Cancer, Diabetes, Cardiovascular Diseases and Stroke (NPCDCS)’ was initiated in 100 districts in 2010, and expanded to about 468 districts in 2012, in tandem with other Non Communicable Diseases (NCDs).

After further review, the Government informed the Indian Parliament on April 01, 2017 about the launch of universal screening of diabetes, hypertension and cancer in 2100 districts, which would be extended across the country. Accordingly, ‘Operational Guidelines for Non-Communicable Diseases’ were worked out and made public.

A large number of cancer cases remain undetected:

It is worth noting, India is still among one those countries where a large number of cancer cases remain undetected or under-diagnosed. The country continues to grapple with a huge dearth of specialists in this area. These include not just cancer specialists, which reportedly is just 1 over 2000 cancer patients, but qualified pathologists, as well. This stark reality assumes greater importance, as early diagnosis with precision is the key to successful treatment of cancer.

It’s more in rural India:

Availability and access to affordable cancer diagnostic facilities, are indeed a major issue much more in rural areas – the home of over 70 percent of the Indian population. Consequently, its late detection, together with low awareness level for disease prevention, is considered to be the major factors attributing to relatively higher cancer mortality rate in the country.

The intensity of this problem increases manifold and gets more complex, due to various other geographic and logistical constraints. This situation makes high-technology based medical interventions a necessity to save many lives.

A unique public-private partnership initiative:

Interestingly, some developed countries are also trying to address the core issue of increasing access to affordable cancer diagnosis and treatment to all. An example of which can be drawn from the United Kingdom (UK), where one of finest Universal Health Care (UHC) system exists, for a long time.

On December 06, 2017, by a media release Roche Diagnostics announced a groundbreaking partnership discussions with the UK Government to transform cancer testing in patients.’ It said that the current shortage of pathologists and geographic constraints can make it difficult or longer for an expert to provide an opinion on a cancer patient case, where ‘digital pathology’ can play a crucial life-saving role.

Roche Diagnostics articulated that once important patient-cases are made available digitally, experts from any location can review them without delay. This would lead to availability of more equal access to experts to provide a timely and accurate diagnosis for cancer patients. It further said, making more information available electronically opens possibilities for the discovery of new treatments and the development of Artificial Intelligence algorithms in pathology diagnosis.

A Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) approach, such as the above can add greater efficiency, especially in tissue pathology services – including the expensive ones, to deliver faster and more accurate test results across the health care space, even in India. It goes without saying, such a PPP initiative has to be fleshed out with considerable details to unleash its true potential.

Thus, ‘digital pathology’, I reckon, has the potential to play a path-breaking role in providing access to affordable and early diagnosis of cancer to a large number patients, even in remote places, leading to better outcomes.

The scope of ‘digital pathology’:

It now brings us to the question of: what exactly is ‘digital pathology’? In simple term, ‘digital pathology’ involves remotely examining the whole slide digital imaging of original pathological slides of a patient, virtually in real time, from anywhere in the world to properly diagnose a disease. In case of cancer, these are digital image of original blood and tissue slides of patients, examined by experts with the application of special ‘digital pathology’ software and hardware, from a distant specialty hospital or laboratory.

According to the article titled ‘Artificial intelligence is aiding pathologists’, published on September 02, 2017 by the ‘Digital Journal’, AI or machine learning is being increasingly used in ‘digital pathology’ for precision diagnosis of a disease.

One such use of AI in ‘digital pathology’ for cancer, is to recognize broad or specific patterns in a whole slide image to interpret the features in the cancerous tissues for accurate diagnosis of metastasis and recurrence, besides the stage or grade of cancer.

Preparation of samples for ‘digital pathology’ is very important, and the requirements may vary with different cancer types. Nonetheless, prescribed procedures for each need to be adhered to, meticulously, even in those areas where there is no qualified pathologist, and paramedics do this job. Hence, those personnel should be thoroughly trained and periodically refreshed by well qualified specialist trainers.

Digital pathology in India:

The article titled, ‘Telepathology at the doorstep of a village’, published by the Department of Atomic Energy in India that was last updated on December 14, 2017, aptly captures the scope of ‘digital pathology’ or ‘Telepathology’ in the country.

The authors recognized in the article, despite the high quality of expertise being available within the country, even for the treatment of cancer, it is not available or accessible to a large section of the population, more in the rural areas. On the other hand, super specialty health care facilities like, Tata Memorial Hospital (TMH) or All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS) cannot take the increasing patient load, beyond a point, due to various constraints.

Improving telecommunication infrastructure in the country, can be put to effective use for accurate diagnosis of cancer with ‘digital pathology’ or ‘tele-pathology’. Nevertheless, this application is currently operable mostly in those rural and semi urban areas, where a minimum standard of telecommunication infrastructure is available. However, the good news is, such areas are growing in India.

An interesting example is Barshi – a rural landscape in interior Maharashtra, located around 500 km away from Mumbai. Nargis Dutt Memorial Cancer Hospital (NDMCH) located in this hinterland, with Tata Memorial Hospital’s constant support and guidance, especially in ‘digital pathology’ has become an important cancer center. NDMCH now caters to a sizable population from a number of villages and towns surrounding it – in the districts of Solapur, Osmanabad and Latur.

A Government Press Release of October 19, 2016 states that AIIMS in Delhi has gone digital, becoming India’s first fully digital public e-hospital. More initiatives, such as these, in collaboration with rural health centers, and other related PPP initiatives, are expected to significantly improve access to ‘digital pathology’ to a large population, especially for early cancer detection in India.

More ‘Digital pathology’ initiatives are spreading roots in India, including the private business space. For example, according to a media report, Anand Diagnostic Laboratory in Bengaluru has become the first private diagnostic laboratory in the country to adopt the complete Roche Digital Pathology portfolio to provide better diagnostic insights for physicians and their patients.

“From simply remotely viewing patient slides, to consulting specialists real time within India or even through other parts of the world – the applications of digital pathology are endless” – commented the Managing Director, Roche Diagnostics India, while discussing the new technology at a meeting of pathologists in India.

Conclusion:

Against this backdrop, a wide-network of PPP initiatives of affordable ‘digital pathology’ would be a game changer, particularly for early detection of cancer. With the incidence of cancer rising fast in India, and its effective management getting increasingly more complex – requiring prompt specialists’ intervention right from early diagnosis, such initiatives call for high priority.

A few green-shoots are already visible in this area, but quite sporadic in nature, though. Hoping that its pace of progress will soon gain momentum, the emerging role of digital pathology in cancer brings a fresh hope for survival with dignity to a large population of patients – if and when cancer poses to strike its deadly blow.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Moving Beyond The Pill: No Longer An Option

Posted on November 13, 2017 by Tapan Ray

Many of us would prefer to live, as long as possible, in the comfort zones of old paradigms, hoping to succeed in the same way as we had succeeded in the past. But the wheel of time keeps moving, triggering a significant shift in various paradigms. This includes even the health care space. Most of these changes, as they tend to attain a critical mass, capture the imagination of some in the pharma industry – escaping the attention of many.

One such area of a shifting paradigm is increasing patient preference to get actively engaged in their health care. More specifically, such preferences span across the entire chain of any disease management process – from diagnosis to treatment, often including continuous monitoring, whenever required.

Thus, the creation of well-differentiated value-added patient engagement services, based on credible research data of statistical significance, craftily bundled around the pill, will assume paramount importance. More importantly, such value offerings should lead to demonstrable improvement in treatment outcomes.

This, I reckon, would be the new recipe for pharma marketing excellence in the coming years. In this article, I shall focus on this fast-evolving landscape.

Dawns a new realization:

Early realization of this change is working as an impetus for some global pharma majors to redraw their strategic business models, making appropriate course corrections, which are mostly fundamental in nature.

The article titled ‘How Pharma Can Offer More than Pills’, published in the Harvard Business Review (HBR) on July 23, 2015 identifies the following two realizations as the impetus behind moving beyond the pill initiatives:

Medicines alone are often not enough for patients to achieve optimal clinical outcomes.
As pharmaceutical pipelines dry up, beyond-the-pill businesses can be valuable new sources of revenues.

Joseph Jimenez, the global CEO of Novartis, appears to be one of the first and foremost to recognize this requirement when he said in 2014 that: “Creating value by embedding products into a holistic offering with the aim to improve patient outcomes and provide tangible competitive advantages.” Jimenez said at that time, “Beyond-the-pill is a logical and inevitable path forward for all.”

As this new realization gets effectively translated into cutting-edge business strategies, “Medicines could accordingly reach market with a label that includes an ‘around the pill’ solution such as a wearable or another tracking device”, as the above HBR article foresees.

Shifting success requirements:

Going forward, delivering only the value of a pill won’t be quite enough to make the sales revenue and profit trend moving north, registering a steep gradient.

As more patients want to experience differential values in the entire disease treatment process through greater participation and engagement, business success requirements of pharma players call for a major shift, accordingly. This would involve moving away from the traditional model – from increasing sales through a growing number of treatments, to boosting revenue through patient-centric well-differentiated value offerings. I repeat, the entire process should ultimately lead to quantifiable improvement in treatment outcomes.

Direct ‘patient engagement’ is easier said than done:

Direct patient engagement is easier said than done. It is not just something that is ready to happen at any given point of time. Pharma companies will require to first equip much greater number of patients, through various means, to become actively engaged in health care, as they step into this direction.

It is envisaged that most of these direct patient engagement endeavors of pharma will be on various digital platforms. The process would require accurately identifying the target groups, what exactly they consider of immense value for such engagement – and finally effectively delivering those value offerings in innovative and customized ways to them, for improved treatment outcomes.

‘Patient engagement’ should be measurable:

The level of such engagement needs to be continuously measured through ‘patient activation’ tools to establish cost-efficient improved outcomes. Researchers have established that patients with a lower ‘activation score’ ultimately incur higher costs.

An interesting article on ‘patient activation’ describes this terminology as ‘the skills and confidence that equip patients to become actively engaged in their health care.’ It says that health care delivery systems are now turning to ‘patient activation’ as yet another tool to help them and their patients improve outcomes and influence costs. To establish this point, the paper examined the relationship between ‘patient activation levels’ and billed care costs.

In this analysis of 33,163 patients, the researchers found that patients with the ‘lowest activation levels’ had predicted average costs that were 8 percent higher in the base year and 21 percent higher in the first half of the next year than the costs for patients with the highest activation levels. Both are significant differences.

Following an analogous approach, Novartis has been able to demonstrate better disease outcomes with its cardiovascular drug Entresto, as reported in the Financial Times dated April 14, 2017. Ably supported by remote monitoring and coaching programs for patients with advanced heart failure, Novartis has reportedly been able to establish that its customized disease treatment solution brings down hospitalization and cardiovascular death rate by around 20 percent.

Greater pharma accountability needed for treatment cost versus outcomes:

The authors of this paper, further established ‘patient activation’ as a significant predictor of cost even after adjustment for a commonly used “risk score” specifically designed to predict future costs. This trend, when reaches the decisive moment, is likely to assign greater accountability for costs and outcomes, even to the pharma players.

While moving into this direction:

Accurately knowing patients’ ability and willingness to manage their health will be a critical piece of information for the drug companies. This would prompt the pharma marketers to be highly proficient in generating a huge pool of credible data on target patient groups in various relevant areas, including expectations, aspirations, preferences and treatment related behavior. Thereafter, strategic game plan for business excellence should be based on in-depth analysis of this huge database, created on an ongoing basis.

If any skill gap exists in generating and analyzing the data meaningfully, pharma companies may wish to collaborate with external expertise in this area. A few excellent examples in this area have already started being reported, such as

Astra Zeneca’s partnering with Vida Health to offer free health coaching services to heart attack sufferers, or Sanofi partnering with Verily (previously known as Google Life Sciences) to develop new services for patients to manage diabetes better.

With similar initiatives, pharma players can effectively demonstrate to their stakeholders, details of better health outcomes that their patient-centric disease treatment solutions are offering – eventually taking their brands to a new trajectory of more inclusive success.

Conclusion:

Those days are not too far when many patients, especially with chronic diseases, such as hypertension, arthritis or diabetes, would prefer to buy a comprehensive disease management solution to lead a better quality of life, instead of just buying a pill – and quite often for lifelong.

In a new paradigm, with changing ‘value expectations’ of many patients in the entire treatment process, ‘value creation’ and ‘value delivery’ mechanisms of drug companies are likely to change accordingly. One of the key barriers to this shift is mostly the traditional business culture of most pharma players. Another significant one is its slow pace of moving into the digitized world, as compared to other science and technology driven industries.

Moving ‘beyond the pill’ would necessitate a basic shift in the mindset – from selling a pill to selling better health outcomes. In this endeavor, pharma CEOs require leading from the front. Instilling courage within the organization to ensure this fundamental strategic shift in the company’s business model taking place on the ground, is their prime responsibility. Thus, stepping into this new paradigm with requisite wherewithal, sooner, would no longer be just for business excellence, but for its long-term survival too.

By: Tapan J. Ray

High Innovation-Cost Makes Cancer Drugs Dear: A Fragile Argument?

Posted on September 18, 2017 by Tapan Ray

Cancer is a major cause of high morbidity and mortality in India, just many other countries, according to a report of the World Health Organization (W.H.O). While deaths from cancer worldwide are projected to continue to rise to over 1.31 million in 2030, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) estimates that India is likely to have over 1.73 million new cases of cancer and over 8,80,000 deaths due to the disease by 2020 with cancers of breast, lung and cervix topping the list.

Cancer treatment is beyond the reach of many:

Despite cancer being one of the top five leading causes of death in the country, with a major impact on society, its treatment is still beyond the reach of many. There are, of course, a number of critical issues that need to be addressed in containing the havoc that this dreaded disease causes in many families – spanning across its entire chain, from preventive measures to early diagnosis and right up to its effective treatment. However, in this article, I shall focus only on the concern related to affordable treatment with appropriate cancer with medicines.

To illustrate this point, I shall quote first from the address of the Chief Minister of Maharashtra during inauguration of Aditya Birla Memorial Hospital Cancer Care Center on November 26, 2016. He said: “Cancer is the dreadful disease of all the time and for Maharashtra it is a big challenge as we are infamously at number two position in cancer cases in the country as after Uttar Pradesh, most cases are found here.” Incidentally, UP is one of the poorest state of India.

Underscoring that the biggest challenge before the technology is to bring down the cost of the cancer treatment and make it affordable and accessible for all, the Chief Minister (CM) further observed, “although, technological innovation has increased in last one decade, the accessibility and affordability still remain a challenge and I think, we need to work on this aspect.”

A new cancer drug launch vindicates the CM’s point:

The Maharashtra CM’s above statement is vindicated by a national media report of September 13, 2017. It said, Merck & Co of the United States have launched its blockbuster cancer drug ‘Keytruda’ (pembrolizumab) in India, around a year after its marketing approval in the country. Keytruda is expected to be 30 percent cheaper, compared to its global prices, costing Rs 3,75,000 – 4,50,000 to patients for each 21-day dose in India.

The point to take note of, despite being 30 percent cheaper, how many Indian patients will be able to afford this drug for every 3 weeks therapy? Doesn’t it, therefore, endorse the CM’s above submission? Well, some may argue that this exorbitant drug price is directly linked to high costs for its innovation and clinical development. Let me examine this myth now under the backdrop of credible research studies.

Cancer drugs are least affordable in India – An international study:

On June 6, 2016, by a Press Release, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) revealed the results of one of the largest analyses of differences in cancer drug prices between countries worldwide. The researchers calculated monthly drug doses for 15 generic and eight patented cancer drugs used to treat a wide range of cancer types and stages. Retail drug prices in Australia, China, India, South Africa, United Kingdom, Israel, and the United States were obtained predominantly from government websites. The study shows that cancer drug prices are the highest in the United States, and the lowest in India and South Africa.

However, adjusting the prices against ‘GDPcapPPP’ – a measure of national wealth that takes into consideration the cost of living, cancer drugs appeared to be least affordable in India and China. The researchers obtained the ‘GDPcapPPP’ data for each country from the International Monetary Fund and used it to estimate the affordability of drugs.

Why are cancer drug prices so high and not affordable to many?

The most common argument of the research based pharma companies is that the cost of research and development to bring an innovative new drug goes in billions of dollars.

The same question was raised in a series of interviews at the J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference, published by the CNBC with a title “CEOs: What’s missing in the drug pricing debate” on January 11, 2016, where three Global CEOs expressed that the public is getting overly simple arguments in the debate about drug pricing. All three of them reportedly cited three different reasons altogether, as follows:

Eli Lilly CEO said, “Some of the noise you hear about drug pricing neglects the fact that we often must pay deep discounts in a market-based environment where we’re competing in many cases against other alternative therapies, including those low-cost generics.”

Pfizer CEO took a different approach by saying, “if you look at the market, about a decade ago, 54 percent of the pharmaceutical market was genericized; today 90 percent is genericized.”

However, as reported by CNBC, Novartis CEO Joseph Jimenez, focusing on innovation and in context on cancer drugs, argued “innovation has to continue to be rewarded or we’re just not going to be able to see the kind of breakthroughs that we have seen in cancer research, specifically regarding the uses and benefits of the cancer-fighting drug Gleevec. We continued to show that the drug was valuable in other indications in cancer and so we needed to be reared for that innovation and we’re pricing according to that.”

Is drug innovation as expensive and time intensive as claimed to be?

An article titled, “The high cost of drugs is the price we pay for innovation”, published by the World Economic Forum (WEF) on March 28, 2017 reported, “15 spenders in the pharmaceutical industry are investing about US$3 billion in R&D, on average, for each successful new medicine.”

The November 18, 2014 report on the ‘Cost of Developing a New Drug,’ prepared by the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development also announced: “The estimated average pre-tax industry cost per new prescription drug approval (inclusive of failures and capital costs) is: US$ 2,558 million.”

Not everybody agrees:

Interestingly, Professor of Medicine of Harvard University – Jerry Avorn questioned the very basis of this study in the article published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) on May 14, 2015. It’s not just NEJM even the erstwhile Global CEO of GSK – Sir Andrew Witty had questioned such high numbers attributed to R&D cost, around 5 years ago, in 2013. At that time Reuters reported his comments on the subject, as follows:

“The pharmaceutical industry should be able to charge less for new drugs in future by passing on efficiencies in research and development to its customers. It’s not unrealistic to expect that new innovation ought to be priced at or below, in some cases, the prices that have pre-existed them. We haven’t seen that in recent eras of the (pharmaceutical) industry, but it is completely normal in other industries.” Quoting the study of Deloitte and Thomson Reuters on R&D productivity among the world’s 12 top drugmakers that said the average cost of developing a new medicine, including failures, was then US$ 1.1 billion, Witty remarked, “US$ 1 billion price-tag was one of the great myths of the industry.”

A decade after Sir Andrew’s comment, his view was virtually corroborated by yet another research study, published this month. The study reemphasized: “The Tufts analysis lacks transparency and is difficult to judge on its merits. It cannot be properly analyzed without knowing the specific drug products investigated, yet this has been deemed proprietary information and is governed by confidentiality agreements.” I shall discuss this report briefly, in just a bit.

The latest study busts the myth:

The latest study on the subject, titled “Research and Development Spending to Bring a Single Cancer Drug to Market and Revenues After Approval”, has been published in the ‘JAMA Internal Medicine’ on September 11, 2017. It busts the myth that ‘high innovation-cost makes cancer drugs dear,’ providing a transparent estimate of R&D spending on cancer drugs. Interestingly, the analysis included the cost of failures, as well, while working out the total R&D costs of a company.

The report started by saying: “A common justification for high cancer drug prices is the sizable research and development (R&D) outlay necessary to bring a drug to the US market. A recent estimate of R&D spending is US$ 2.7 billion (2017 US dollars). However, this analysis lacks transparency and independent replication.”

The study concludes: “Prior estimates for the cost to develop one new drug span from US$ 320.0 million to US$ 2.7 billion. We analyzed R&D spending for pharmaceutical companies that successfully pursued their first drug approval and estimate that it costs US$ 648.0 million to bring a drug to market. In a short period, development cost is more than recouped, and some companies boast more than a 10-fold higher revenue than R&D spending—a sum not seen in other sectors of the economy. Future work regarding the cost of cancer drugs may be facilitated by more, not less, transparency in the biopharmaceutical industry.” The researchers also established that ‘the median time to develop a drug was 7.3 years (range, 5.8-15.2 years).’

“Policymakers can safely take steps to rein in drug prices without fear of jeopardizing innovation”:

NPR – a multimedia news organization and radio program producer reported: In an invited commentary that accompanies the JAMA Internal Medicine analysis, Merrill Goozner, editor emeritus of the magazine Modern Healthcare, noted that “the industry consistently generates the highest profit margins among all U.S. industries.” Goozner argues that the enormous value of patent protection for drugs far outweighs the inherent riskiness of pharmaceutical research and development, and agrees with the study authors when he writes: “Policymakers can safely take steps to rein in drug prices without fear of jeopardizing innovation,” NPR wrote.

Conclusion:

So, the moot question that surfaces: Is Pharma innovation as expensive and time consuming as claimed to be? If not, it further strengthens the credibility barrier to Big Pharma’s relentless pro-innovation messaging. Is the core intent, then, stretching the product monopoly status as long as possible – with jaw dropping pricing, unrelated to cost of innovation?

Further, incidents such as, shielding patent of a best-selling drug from low priced generic competition, by transferring its patents on to a native American tribe, probably, unveil the core intent of unabated pro-innovation messaging of major global pharma companies. In this particular case, being one among those companies which are seeking to market cheaper generic versions of this blockbuster eye drug, Mylan reportedly has decided to vigorously oppose such delaying tactic of Allergan before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

As a cumulative impact of similar developments, lawmakers in the United States are reportedly framing new laws to address the issue of high drug prices. For example, “California’s Senate Bill 17 would require health insurers to disclose the costs of certain drugs and force pharmaceutical manufacturers to detail price hikes to an agency for posting on a government website. The proposal would also make drugmakers liable to pay a civil penalty if they don’t follow its provisions.”

The myth of ‘high innovation-cost makes cancer drugs dear’ will go bust with such revelations, regardless of the blitzkrieg of self-serving pro-innovation fragile messaging. Alongside, shouldn’t the Indian Policy makers take appropriate measures to rein in cancer drug prices, being free from any apprehension of jeopardizing innovation?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Making New Cancer Drugs Cost-effective

Posted on April 17, 2017 by Tapan Ray

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

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

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

Cancer – the second leading cause of death:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The reason for high drug price:

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

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

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

Pharma R&D cost:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Need for an alternative R&D strategy:

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

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

Drug Repurposing:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Repurposing drugs for cancer:

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

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

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

‘Drug repurposing’ market:

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

Expressing concern just not enough:

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

However, in India, high prices of cancer drugs do not seem to be a great issue with the medical profession, just yet, notwithstanding some sporadic steps taken by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) to allay the economic burden of cancer patients to some extent. Encouragingly, the top cancer specialists of the American Society of Clinical Oncology are reportedly working out a framework for rating and selecting cancer drugs not only for their benefits and side effects, but prices as well.

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: treatment

Increasing Consumerism: A Prime Mover For Change in Healthcare

Creating A ‘Virtuous Cycle’ Through Patient Reach and Care

Providing Unique Patient Experience – A New Brand Differentiator

How Relevant Is A Pharma Brand Name To Patients?

Emerging Role of Digital Pathology in Cancer

Moving Beyond The Pill: No Longer An Option

High Innovation-Cost Makes Cancer Drugs Dear: A Fragile Argument?

Making New Cancer Drugs Cost-effective