Tag Archives: witty

Trees Die From The Top: Apt For Pharma Leadership Too?

Posted on by
Reply

The Management Guru of all-time – Peter F. Drucker once said: “The spirit of an organization is created from the top… If an organization is great in spirit, it is because the spirit of its top people is great.” As “Trees die from the top”, no one should ever become a strategist unless he or she is willing to have his or her character serve as a model for subordinates – Drucker emphasized.

Decades after this assertion from Drucker, meant for management practitioners, it is discernible even today how irrefutable these axioms are.  In the contemporary times, as well, particularly when reality bites a company hard, being caught on the wrong side of ‘generally acceptable’ ethics, value and compliance standards.

While zeroing in to pharma, soundbites usually generated at that time, especially from the top echelon of the management, seem to hint that employees down the rung are responsible for such misdeeds, besides, of course, the legacy factor.

At this moment of truth, it is also not unusual for them to romancing the utopia, as it were. Senior management comes out with several ideas, which are squeaky clean in terms of optics. Some of them also talk about introducing behavior metric on ethics and values in employee performance appraisal before releasing any performance related pay out. In this article, I shall focus on this leadership issue in view of some latest developments in this area.

The latest developments:  

Let me now come straight to the latest developments in this area, as I see around.

“Novartis links bonuses to ethics in bid to rebuild reputation” – was a headline of Reuters on September 18, 2018. It reported: “Swiss drug maker Novartis has revealed its employees only get a bonus if they meet or exceed expectations for ethical behavior as it seeks to address past shortcomings that have damaged its reputation.”

Some interesting points stand out from this report on the ownership of such alleged malpractices. These reconfirm that the reasons for the same, including the repeated allegations of such nature, are being passed on to others by the top management. For example:

  • To past practices or the legacy factor, even if the current CEO has been a part of that corporate environment, since long.
  • To employees responsible down the line, and a new system is being adopted to address the issue.

In this case, as Reuters reports: “Chief Executive Vas Narasimhan has made strengthening the Swiss drug maker’s ethics culture a priority after costly bribery scandals or legal settlements in South Korea, China and the United States.”

Interestingly, as reported by the media, “the company was also this year embroiled in a political controversy over payments it made to U.S. President Donald Trump’s ex-attorney.”  Previously, even in the clinical trial area, Japanese authorities, reportedly “uncovered serious misconduct during a trial of its leukemia drug, Tasigna.”

As I said above, in response to such incidents, the General Counsel of Novartis, reportedly expressed: “This allows us to look at the behavior metric before any money leaves Novartis and catch potential misconduct before there is any risk to our reputation.” The official further added, “You can expect us to continue focusing on resolving the legacy issues that we read about in the press, ensuring we address any remaining underlying behaviors.”

Such steps not taken for the first time by a pharma company: 

EvenGlaxoSmithKline tried something akin in the past.

“GSK scraps sales rep targets after scandal,” was the headline of December 17, 2013 edition of the Financial Times. It reported: “GlaxoSmithKline is to scrap individual sales targets for its commercial staff as it seeks to repair its image and reform working practices in the wake of allegations in China that its staff paid officials up to $500m in bribes. The move comes amid concerns over aggressive marketing across the pharmaceutical industry and follows a series of damaging regulatory probes leading to a record $ 3bn fine in the US last year.”

However, later on GlaxoSmithKline, reportedly “altered the plan when its sales began to suffer in the world’s largest market.”

Where is the real issue lying?

As“PwC‘s 21st CEO Survey: Preparing for disruption” found, 71 percent of CEOs surveyed said that their organizations face greater pressure to deliver business results in less time.

There isn’t an iota of doubt, I reckon, that pharma CEOs are under constant performance pressure from the investors and other stakeholders to deliver expected financial results. This makes them keep their eyes primarily glued on to the grindstone for churning out expected profits from the business. This also means that they expect management efforts to be generally directed to deliver ‘values’ at the least possible cost.

On the other hand, the same PwC survey findings reiterated that with rising drug costs, the demand for the drug companies to demonstrate the treatment efficacy, is increasing by manifold. Thus, “to remain competitive, Big Pharma will have to do things faster (like drug development) and cheaper for the patient, add more value for the same money, and become more proactive partners with patients and doctors in both wellness and cure” - one of the findings of this study emphasized.

It is quite common for most large to medium sized pharma companies to have in place a well-articulated organizational ‘ethics, compliance and values’, together with requisite checks and balances in the form of rigorous rules, regulations and other guidelines.

Most often these adorn the respective websites too, for public knowledge. The question, therefore, surfaces what could then possibly go wrong in the organization and where exactly does the real issue lie, while effectively managing the organizational growth?

“Non-compliance – A serious challenge to growth”: 

Serious malpractices and their related fallout in pharma business – not just in marketing, but clinical trials, manufacturing, quality assurance and other areas, are not usually due to any lack of requisite processes or expertise. These are generally serious consequences of non-compliance of various organizational norms. At times, with the indirect support of senior management, or senior management keeps their eyes closed on such non-compliances, under demanding obligation for delivering expected financial results and business growth.

Tweaking areas, such as employee performance-incentive norms, as happened in the cases of GSK or Novartis, can’t fetch a long-lasting solution in such a situation, as I see it. Nonetheless, the survey report findings of Deloitte, titled “Non-compliance – A serious challenge to growth,” are interesting to get a sense of the reasons behind the same.

Key reasons for non-compliance: 

The Deloitte report identifies some key contributors to malpractices and non-compliance in the pharma sector, indicating the percentage of survey respondents involved against each, as follows:

  • Lack of an efficient internal control/ compliance system:  61 percent
  • Weak regulatory enforcement / action taken against fraudsters:  55 percent
  • Inadequate utilization of technology tools available to identify red flags:  45 percent
  • Lack of a zero-tolerance approach towards malpractice and regulatory non-compliance:  45 percent
  • Inadequate due diligence on employees/ third party associates:  36 percent
  • Unrealistic targets/goals linked to monetary compensations:  33 percent
  • Senior management override of controls:  24 percent
  • Inadequate oversight by the Board/ Audit Committee:  06 percent

As I mentioned before, most key contributors to malpractice and non-compliance point towards a lack of senior management efficiency in internal controls, systems, and “inadequate utilization of technology tools available to identify red flags.” Curiously, no one mentions about the requirements for any fresh measures or systems to curb such incidents, in the future.

Just tweaking the present system may not help:

Just for changing the optics, tweaking the present system often doesn’t help. Many similar instances in the past, such as GSK’s example, as cited above, would vindicate this point. In the GSK case, at least, it’s the then CEO – Sir Andrew Witty expectedly realized that ‘unrealistic targets/goals linked to monetary compensations’ lead to such corruptions.

But total delinking of the core responsibility of any sales staff, namely ‘generation of top-level numbers both in volume and value’, with performance incentive, could throw some future challenges. Similar reason, presumably prompted GSK altering the plan when its sales began to suffer, at a later date.

Similarly, Novartis is, reportedly introducing a new behavioral metric as qualifying criteria for its employees to earn bonuses or incentives. Intriguingly, despite the existence of rigorous rules, regulations, guidelines and associated punitive provisions for not complying with the company ethics and values for a long-time, malpractices are still being reported today.

Thus, I wonder, how will an additional system of similar nature prevent recurrence of such incidents in the future? Anyway, only the future will tell whether a tweaking of this nature in the present system that did not work in the past, will work in this particular case effectively.

Conclusion:

The reasons for less than adequate internal controls of an organization, I reckon, fall squarely on the senior management, especially for repeat offences. Passing the blame to employees down the line or tweaking their performance appraisal system by introducing a ‘behavioral metric’, is likely to be short term, finger-pointing on the legacy factor notwithstanding.

On the contrary, these may likely to be construed as manifestations of knee-jerk reactions, and not so well-thought-out strategic measures. Neither do such repeated malpractices demonstrate a great spirit of the organization, nor do these evince astute leadership qualities of its top management.

Coming back to where I started from, quoting what the management guru Peter Drucker once said: “The spirit of an organization is created from the top… If an organization is great in spirit, it is because the spirit of its top people is great.” He also reiterated, no one should ever become a strategist unless he or she is willing to have his or her character serve as a model for subordinates This is certainly not the situation for those pharma players mired with alleged malpractices, repeatedly – not just in marketing, but in other operational areas too.

As the good old saying goes: “trees die from the top,” so is also an organization when its senior management lacks a moral compass on ethics, compliance and values. Considering what is being often reported on business malpractices within the drug industry, isn’t the saying equally apt for pharma leadership, as well?

By: Tapan J. Ray   

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

Pharma Stakeholder Sentiment: Back to Square One?

Posted on by
Reply

Is it fair to push out the core purpose of an important process, or rather a mission, unfairly? Whether we like it or not, it happened that way, over a period of time.

Way back on December 01, 1950, George W. Merck (President and Chairman Merck & Co., Inc.1925-1957), epitomized the core purpose of the drug innovation process. This is something, which apparently was possible only for him to articulate exactly the way he did.

On that day, while addressing the students and the faculty at the Medical College of Virginia, Richmond, George Merck said: “We try to remember that medicine is for the patient. We try never to forget that medicine is for the people. It is not for the profits. The profits follow, and if we have remembered that, they have never failed to appear. The better we have remembered it, the larger they have been.”

To many of us, it may sound more as an altruistic statement, and not really coming from a businessman who wants to excel in the financial performance of the organization. Interestingly, that was not the case, either. Merck removed any possible ambiguity in his statement by stating categorically: “In doing this, it will be as a business­ man associated with that area of the chemical industry which serves chiefly the worlds of medicine and pharmacy.”

In this article, I shall deliberate on whether or not the core purpose of drug innovation, as articulated by George Merck in 1950 has been pushed out of the mind of the stakeholders for good.

Management Guru – Peter Drucker’s similar observation:

It is worthwhile to recapitulate at this stage that around the same time, the Management Guru – Peter Drucker also made a similar observation, which is relevant even today. He said: “Because the purpose of business is to create a customer, the business enterprise has two – and only two basic functions: marketing and innovation. Marketing and innovation produce results; all the rest are costs. Marketing is the distinguishing, unique function of the business.”

Interestingly, when the word ‘customer’ is replaced with ‘patients’, George W. Merck’s iconic statement fits so well even in the realm of business management, including drugs and pharmaceuticals.

Signs of the core purpose of new drug discovery getting pushed out:

The core purpose of new drug innovation in pharma business, as articulated by a top industry pioneer – ‘Medicine is for the patient and not for the profits’, was pushed out eventually, regardless of its reasons. Today’s core purpose of the same process has seemingly become just the opposite of that – ‘Medicine is only for the patient who can afford it – to maximize profit.’

This change in the core purpose was visible in a large number of instances. For example, when the then Bayer CEO Marijn Dekkers reportedly said: ‘Our cancer drug is for rich westerners, not poor Indians.’  However, his exact wordings were “we did not develop this product for the Indian market, let’s be honest. We developed this product for Western patients who can afford this product, quite honestly.” If so,the question that comes up: why then Bayer fought so hard and spent so much of money, efforts and time to keep selling this specific product in India – exclusively?

In any case, this statement from the highest echelon of one of the top global pharma players is a contentious one, especially against George Merck’s articulation, or even Peter Drucker’s for that matter, on the same. By the way, Dekkers made this commentat the Financial Times Global Pharmaceutical & Biotech Conference in December in December 2013.

A wind of change?

The hope for a wind of change flickered when in an interview, Andrew Witty,the erstwhile global CEO of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), signaled a totally contrasting view of his company. Witty said: “GSK is committed to offering all its new drugs in India at affordable prices.”

Much prior to this, on March 14, 2013 he told a conference on healthcare in London that: “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.” He further expressed: “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.”

Witty era is also over now. He retired from GSK at the age of around 53 on March 31, 2017. Perhaps his refreshing patient-centric thoughts would also not find any takers within the industry. Nonetheless, in March 2018, the same issue resurfaced in an interesting article, followed by a few other related developments.

Call for socializing drug development?

The issue, which is not just limited to high prices for new patented drugs, is much broader. An interesting article titled, “Developing drugs wasn’t always about profit, and it shouldn’t be now”, was published in Quartz- a news website owned by Atlantic Media, brings to the fore the same key point, yet again. It makes some profound observations, such as socializing drug development. The word ‘socializing’ may not be quite acceptable to many, though. Nevertheless, it raises some critical issues worth pondering over, such as:

  • Faith in the power of money pervades our modern medical system. Pharmaceutical companies aren’t evil (usually). They just choose to make the most profitable drugs, not the drugs of greatest value to society.
  • For example, despite antimicrobial resistance being a global threat, pharma companies have largely abandoned new antibiotic development on the eminently sensible principle that they are money-losers. Promising narrow-spectrum antibiotics – agents that precisely target pathogens and spare “good” bacteria - languish in development limbo because there is no hope that they might churn as much profit as several other drugs.

It’s high time, I reckon, to adequately address the dire need for a reliable supply of the medicines that make a vibrant modern society possible. All stakeholders, including the pharma industry, globally, would require putting their heads together in charting out a clear and time bound pathway for its effective resolution, soon. Otherwise, sheer gravity and the complexity of the situation may prompt the policy makers to move towards ‘socializing drug development,’ much to the dismay of many of us.

Hospitals creating nonprofit generic drug company:

On January 18, 2018, The New York Times (NYT), published an article titled “Fed Up With Drug Companies, Hospitals Decide to Start Their Own,” highlighted a novel initiative to address the prevailing situation, in their own way, without depending on others.

It reported, for many years, several hospital administrations have been expressing frustration when essential drugs like heart medicines have become scarce, or when prices have skyrocketed because investors manipulated the market. Now, about 300 of the country’s largest hospital systems are taking an aggressive step to combat the problem. They plan to go into the drug business themselves, in a move that appears to be the first on this scale.

‘The idea is to directly challenge the host of industry players who have capitalized on certain markets, buying up monopolies of old, off-patent drugs and then sharply raising prices, stoking public outrage’, the article elaborates.

‘Price of medications has soared, so have pharma profits’:

‘Big Pharma is jacking up prices for one reason – because it can,’ says a CNN Article, published on April 04, 2018. The article further emphasizes: “As the price of medications has soared, so have pharmaceutical company profits. Total sales revenue for top brand-name drugs jumped by almost $8.5 billion over the last five years. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that 67% of drug manufacturers boosted their annual profit margins between 2006 and 2015 – with profit margins up to 20% for some companies in certain years.”

It further writes, “Not only have pharmaceutical companies reaped outsized profits from these price hikes, so have their CEOs. According to a USA Today analysis, the median compensation package for biotech and pharmaceutical CEOs in the Standard & Poor’s 500 was 71% higher than the median compensation for S&P 500 executives in all industries in 2015.”

Conclusion:

This is happening the world over. But its degree varies. In those countries where there are drug price regulators, only a small percentage of the total pharma market by value comes under price regulation, the rest of the products enjoy virtually free pricing freedom.

Would this ground situation change on its own any time soon? There is no specific answer to this question, yet. Moreover, there doesn’t seem to be none around in the pharma industry today with the stature and articulated vision like George Merck. He started from the very basic. Drawing the ‘square one’, he clearly defined the core purpose of discovery, manufacturing and marketing of medicines. Today’s pharma industry, by and large, seems to be charting in other newly drawn squares. Maximizing profit is now considered a key objective of achieving the core purpose – and not an outcome of achieving the core purpose of pharma business.

However, there are some very early signs of several stakeholders’ sentiment changing in this regard. Are they moving back to the basic – square one?

From the chronicles of the past several years on this issue, pharma industry does not seem to be on the same page with those stakeholders, just yet. If they do, a humongous health worry of a vast majority of the global population could be effectively addressed, as many believe.

The reverberations of this sentiment, though rather faint, can be felt in many countries, including the United States, and not just in the developing world, such as India.

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.

A Tipping Point For Robust Healthcare System In India

Posted on by
Reply

“Given the popular uptake of universal health coverage reforms elsewhere in Asia, the Feb 4 elections may be a tipping point for health in India. For example, in 2012, Joko Widodo was elected Governor of Jakarta. He launched popular UHC reforms in the capital and 2 years later was elected president. In 2016, voters in the USA and UK supported politicians prepared to act on the concerns of the electorate. If health becomes a populist cause in India, rather than a political inconvenience, then the country might finally be liberated to achieve health outcomes commensurate with its economic and technical achievements”, is exactly what appeared in the editorial of The Lancet, titled “Health in India, 2017,” published on January 14, 2017.

The Lancet Editor further reiterated: “Because states have responsibility for health, the elections will raise the importance of access to quality, affordable health care in India, regardless of the electoral outcome. It is a debate that needs to be fostered.”

This is, of course, a ‘top-down’ approach for healthcare, as seen in several countries across the world. However, I have recently deliberated another approach in the same area on – why a ‘bottom-up’ demand is not forthcoming in India, in an article titled ‘Healthcare in India And Hierarchy of Needs’, published in this blog on November 06, 2017.

No one, including any Government, would possibly ever argue – why shouldn’t a robust public healthcare system in a country, including the availability of reasonably affordable drugs, assume as much priority as economic growth and education?

On the contrary, Governments in several other countries, including those with a well-functioning Universal Healthcare (UHC) in place, are trying to ensure even better and greater access to healthcare for all, by various different means. In this article, I shall focus on it, in a holistic way.

Exploring a bottom-up approach:

It is increasingly becoming more evident that a bottom-up approach would help yield greater success in this area, with a win-win outcome. It will involve taking the stakeholders on board in the process of framing and implementing healthcare projects within a given time-frame. The question then arises, why is it still not happening on the ground in India the way it should? Just floating a discussion paper on draft projects and policies, for stakeholders’ inputs, isn’t enough any longer. There is a need to move much beyond that in making these decisions more inclusive.

Various successive Governments may have some justifiable funding related or other pressing issues to offer a robust public healthcare system in India. But, none of these will be an insurmountable barrier, if more number of heads of astute stakeholders are involved in ferreting out an effective and implementable India-specific solution in this area, within a pre-determined timeline.

There are examples of remarkable progress in this direction, by involving stakeholders in charting out a workable pathway, agreed by all, and jointly implemented in a well-calibrated and time bound manner. Equally important is to make this plan known to the public, so that the Government can be held accountable, if it falls short of this promise, or even misses any prescribed timeline.

‘The Accelerated Access Pathway’ initiative:

Let me now draw an interesting example of involving stakeholders by the Government to improve patient access to expensive and innovative drugs. This example comes from a country that is running one of the oldest and most efficient UHC in the world – the United Kingdom.

Despite a robust UHC being in place, the National Health Service (NHS) in England had a perennial problem to make ‘breakthrough’ medicines available early to NHS patients. The British pharma industry reportedly had a long-held complaint that patients in England get a raw deal when it comes to accessing the latest medicines.

According to a reported study by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) and endorsed by the charity Cancer Research UK, average British patients get lower access to leading cancer medicines than their European counterparts.

To resolve this issue effectively, the British Government launched ‘The Accelerated Access Pathway initiative’. Former GSK global CEO Sir Andrew Witty was named as the chairman of this collaborative body. The scheme, launching from April 2018, will see approvals of cutting-edge treatments for conditions like cancer, dementia and diabetes dramatically speeding up. The pathway is expected to get ‘breakthrough’ medicines to NHS patients up to four years earlier, as the report, published in ‘The Telegraph’ on November 3, 2017 indicates.

It is believed that ‘Accelerated Access Collaborative’ initiative would benefit the NHS patients, as well as deliver significant long-term savings for the health service.

Similar initiatives may be effective in India:

Taking collaborative initiatives, such as above, may not be absolutely new in India. However, in a real sense, Indian initiatives are no more than top-down approaches, and not in any way be termed as bottom-up. Moreover, these usually originate in the form of Government discussion papers inviting comments from the stakeholders.

Moreover, in the healthcare policy related arena, there is no subsequent firm resolve by the Government to chart out a clear pathway for its effective implementation, with specific timelines indicated for each step, besides assigning individual accountability for delivering the intended deliverables.

Any such decisive move by the government, keeping all stakeholders engaged is quite rare to come across in our country, as yet. Thus, carefully selected outside expert group suggestions based – the National Health Policies also have met with the same fate, without possibly any exception, thus far.

Two illustrations:

I shall illustrate the above point with two top-of-mind examples. The first one is a report – the ‘High Level Expert Group (HLEG)’ report on ‘Universal Health Coverage (UHC)’ for India, submitted to the erstwhile Planning Commission in November 2011. The other example is of a policy – the National Health Policy (NHP) 2017, which is in place now, based on a report by an expert committee constituted by the Government.

Let me now briefly recapitulate both – one by one, as follows:

The report on ‘Universal Health Coverage (UHC)’ for India

The ‘High Level Expert Group (HLEG)’ on ‘Universal Health Coverage (UHC)’ was constituted by the Planning Commission of India in October 2010, with the mandate of developing a framework for providing easily accessible and affordable health care to all Indians.

While financial protection for healthcare was the principal objective of this initiative, it was recognized that the delivery of UHC also requires the availability of adequate health infrastructure, skilled health workforce, access to affordable drugs and technologies to ensure the entitled level and quality of healthcare is delivered to every citizen.

The report further highlighted, the design and delivery of health programs and services call for efficient management systems as well as active engagement of empowered communities.

The original terms of reference directed the HLEG to address all of these needs of UHC. Since the social determinants of health have a profound influence not only on the health of populations, but also on the ability of individuals to access healthcare, the HLEG decided to include a clear reference to them.

Nevertheless, this report was never acted upon for its effective implementation. Now, with the change in Government, HLEG recommendations for UHC in India seems to have lost its relevance, altogether.

The National Health Policy (NHP) 2017

The new Government that subsequently came to power, decided to start afresh with a brand new and modern National Health Policy in India, replacing the previous one framed 15 years ago in 2002. NHP 2017 promises healthcare in an ‘assured manner’ to all, by addressing the challenges in the changing socioeconomic, epidemiological and technological scenarios. Accordingly, the National Health Policy 2017 was put in place, early this year.

To achieve the objectives, NHP 2017 intends to raise public healthcare expenditure to 2.5 percent of GDP from the current 1.4 percent. Interestingly, no visible signal about the seriousness on implementation of this laudable initiative has reached the public, just yet.

Let’s now wait for the next year’s budget to ascertain whether the policy objective of ‘healthcare in an assured manner to all’ would continue to remain a pipe dream, as happened in earlier budget proposals. It is noteworthy that union budget allocation on health did not go up, at least, in the last 3 years, despite categorical assurances by the ministers on increasing focus on healthcare.

Significant increase in both the union and the state governments budgetary allocation for healthcare is necessary. This is because, besides many other intents, NHP 2017 intends to provide free diagnostics, free drugs and free emergency and essential healthcare services in all public hospitals for healthcare access and financial protection to all.

Universal Healthcare is the core point in both:

The core focus of both – the HLEG report and also the NHP 2017, is UHC in India, but with different approaches. When HLEG report was not translated into reality, the 2014 general election in India was widely expected to be the tipping point for a new public healthcare landscape in the country fulfilling this promise. More so, as the public healthcare system is generally in a shamble throughout the country, except in a handful of states.

Just as in the United States, Europe or Japan, “if health becomes a populist cause in India, rather than a political inconvenience, then the country might finally be liberated to achieve health outcomes commensurate with its economic and technical achievements,” as the above Lancet editorial commented.  Giving yet another perspective, I also wrote in my blog post, titled ‘Healthcare in India And Hierarchy of Needs’ on November 06, 2017, why has it not happened in India, as on date.

Conclusion:

What happens, if the Indian Government too adopts a major collaborative approach, such as ‘The Accelerated Access Pathway’ initiatives, involving all stakeholders – including the pharma and device industry leaders to implement UHC in the country – part by part?

The relevant counter question to this should not be – Will that work? Of course, it will, if the Government wants to. On the contrary, it could be a potential ‘Tipping Point’ to create a robust public healthcare landscape in India. Thus, the real question that we should ask ourselves: Why won’t it work, when all stakeholders are on board to pave the pathway for an efficient Universal Healthcare system in India, in a win-win way?

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.

Marketing Practices: Why Pharma Does What It Does?

Posted on by
Reply

It started way back – spanning across many developed countries of the world. However, probably for the first time in the last five years, an international media group focused on this issue thriving in India, with so much detail.

Reuters reported it with a headline “In India, gift-giving drives drug makers’ marketing.” The report was supported by a detailed description of the relevant events, with ‘naming and shaming’. It drew the attention of some, apparently including the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP), but escaped the attention of many, and finally – got faded away with time, without any reported official investigation.

In this article, I shall revisit this subject against the backdrop of draft pharma policy 2017. My focus will be on the current marketing practices, with the moot question ‘why pharma does what it does’ occupying the center stage of this piece.

Bothering many across the world:

Pharma marketing practices wear different hues and shades. Many of these are contentious, and often perceived as gross ‘malpractices’. Nevertheless, across the world, these have mostly become an integral part of pharma business. Many law-enforcing authorities, including in the US, Europe, Japan and even China, have started taking tough penal action against those transgressions. Interestingly, the draft pharma policy 2017 intends to take this raging bull by its horn, with a multi-pronged approach, as I see it.

It’s a different debate, though, whether the policy makers should bring the mandatory Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) under the Essential Commodities Act, or the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India. Let’s wait and see what exactly transpires in scripting the final version of the new National Pharma Policy to address this issue, comprehensively.

The net impact of the fast evolving ‘newer norms’ of pharma ‘marketing’ practices, has been bothering a large section of the society, including the Governments, for quite some time. Consequently, many top-quality research studies are now being carried out to ascertain the magnitude of this problem. The top ranked pharma market in the world – the United States (US) are leading the way with such analysis. However, I haven’t come across similar India-specific analytical reports, just yet, probably due to lack of enough credible data sources.

Four recent studies:

Several interesting studies supported by a robust database have been carried out in the US during 2016 and 2017 to ascertain whether any direct relationship exists between payments in various forms made to the doctors by the pharmaceutical companies and physicians’ prescribing various drugs in brand names. For better understanding of this issue, I am quoting below, as examples, the gist of just four of such studies:

One of these studies conducted by ProPublica was published in March 2016. It found that physicians in five common medical specialties who accepted, at least one industry payment were more likely to prescribe higher rates of brand-name drugs than physicians who did not receive any payments. More interestingly, the doctors receiving larger payments had a higher brand-name prescribing rate, on an average. Additionally, the type of payment also made a difference: those who received meals alone from companies had a higher rate of brand-name prescribing than physicians receiving no payments, and those who accepted speaking payments had a higher rate of the same than those drawing other types of payments.

The details of the second study published in PLOS on May 16, 2016 states, “While distribution and amount of payments differed widely across medical specialties, for each of the 12 specialties examined the receipt of payments was associated with greater prescribing costs per patient, and greater proportion of branded medication prescribing. We cannot infer a causal relationship, but interventions aimed at those physicians receiving the most payments may present an opportunity to address prescribing costs in the US.”

The third example of such investigative study appeared in the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) on August 2016. This cross-sectional analysis, which included 279,669 physicians found that “physicians who received a single meal promoting the drug of interest, with a mean value of less than $20, had significantly higher rates of prescribing rosuvastatin as compared with other statins; nebivolol as compared with other β-blockers; olmesartan as compared with other angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers; and desvenlafaxine as compared with other selective serotonin and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors.”

This study also concluded that “Receipt of industry-sponsored meals was associated with an increased rate of prescribing the brand-name medication that was being promoted. The findings represent an association, not a cause-and-effect relationship.”

And the fourth analysis on the same subject featuring in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) of 18 August 2016 concluded that “Payments by the manufacturers of pharmaceuticals to physicians were associated with greater regional prescribing of marketed drugs among Medicare Part D beneficiaries. Payments to specialists and payments for speaker and consulting fees were predominantly associated with greater regional prescribing of marketed drugs than payments to non-specialists or payments for food and beverages, gifts, or educational materials.”

Exceptional steps by a few global CEOs – would the rest follow through?

As this juggernaut continues to move unrelenting, a few global CEOs have been taking some exceptional steps in this regard, e.g.:

- In December 2013, Sir Andrew Witty –  erstwhile global CEO of  GlaxoSmithKline tossed out the ‘Big Pharma marketing playbook’. He announced, no longer will his company pay doctors to promote its drugs or shell out bonuses to sales reps based on their ability to boost prescription numbers.

- Around September 2015, Brent Saunders – the Global CEO of Allergan was the first major drug company chief to explicitly renounce egregious price increases. Outlining his company’s “social contract with patients,” he vowed that Allergan would:

  • Limit price increases to single-digit percentages, “slightly above the current annual rate of inflation,” net of rebates and discounts
  • Limit price increases to once per year
  • Forego price increases in the run-up to patent expiration, except in the case of corresponding cost increases.

- In October 2016, Joseph Jimenez – the current global CEO of Novartis said, “We tell people, we don’t want you to deliver at any cost. We want you to deliver, but we want you to deliver in the right way,”

It’s probably a different matter, though, that one of these CEOs has already stepped down, another will do so early 2018, and third iconoclast is still in the saddle. They all are still relatively young, as compared to several of their counterparts.

These are some of the laudable steps taken by a few CEOs for their respective global operations. However, the moot question remains: would rest of the Big Pharma constituents come on board, and successfully follow these initiatives through?

That said, the overall scenario in this area, both in India and abroad, continues to remain mostly unchanged.

Why pharma does what is does?

This may not be akin to a million-dollar question, as its right answer is no-brainer – to generate more, and even more prescription demand for the respective focused brands of the concerned pharma companies. In a scenario, as we have seen above, when money can buy prescriptions with relative ease, and more money buys more prescriptions, how do the prescribers differentiate between different brands of the same molecules or combination of molecules, for greater support?

As evident from various available reports, this kind of intangible product differentiation of dubious nature, doesn’t necessarily have a linear relationship with the quantum of money spent for this purpose. Many believe, it is also intimately related to the nature or kind of various ‘gratis’ extended, some of which are highly contentious. Illustratively, how exotic is the venue of so called ‘Continuing Medical Education (CME)’ event, whether located in India or beyond its shores, bundled with the quality of comfort provided by the event managers, or even whether the spouses can also join the doctors for a few days of a relaxed trip with fabulous sight-seeing arrangements.

Regardless of many pharma players’ terming these events as purely educational in nature, lots of questions in this regard – accompanied by proof, have reportedly been raised on the floor of the Indian Parliament, as well, cutting across virtually all political party lines.

Conclusion:

Should anyone tag the term ‘marketing’ against any such pharma business practices, or even remotely accept these as integral parts of any ‘branding exercise’? For better understanding of my readers, I had explained what this buzzword – ‘branding’ really means in the marketing vocabulary.

Be that as it may, where from the pharma companies recover the huge cost of such vexed business practices? Who ultimately pays for these – and, of course, why? So far, in India, the basic reasoning for the same used to be – branded generics provide significantly better and more predictable drug quality and efficacy than non-branded generics, for patients’ safety.

This logic is anchored mainly on the argument that bioequivalence (BE) and bioavailability (BA) studies are mandatory for all generic drug approvals in India. Interestingly, that loose knot has been tightened in the draft pharma policy proposals 2017. Hope, this commendable policy intent will ultimately see the light of the day, unless another innovative new reason pops-up.

Against this backdrop, many ponder: Are the current pharma ‘marketing’ practices, especially in India, akin to riding a tiger? If the answer is affirmative, the aftermath of the new pharma policy’s coming into force – broadly in its current form and with strict enforcement measures, could well be too tough to handle for those drug players without a Plan B ready.

That said, pharma ‘marketing’ ballgame is getting increasingly more complex, with the involvement of several third-parties, as is often reported. Alongside, it’s equally challenging to fathom ‘why pharma does what it does’ to generate more prescription demand at an incremental cost, which far exceeds commensurate incremental value that branded generics provide to patients in India.

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.

Drug Price Control in India: When A Local Media Goes Against, A Global CEO Doesn’t

Posted on by
Reply

‘Variety is the spice of life’, as the good old saying goes. The week, just gone by, was indeed packed with a wide variety of surprises, well encompassing various important areas, some of which are as follows:

  • Effective November 08, 2016 midnight, Indian currency notes of ₹500 and ₹1000 denominations ceased to remain legal tenders. This demonetization followed extensive media coverage, both national and international, on unprecedented administrative and public chaos around this otherwise bold and good intent.
  • The same day witnessed much unexpected triumph of Trump as the 45th President-Elect and the Commander-in-Chief of the United States of America. It is entirely a different matter though, that post-election, millions of Americans reportedly took to streets across the United states to vent their fury over the billionaire’s election victory.
  • On November 07, 2016, a well-known Indian business daily, ‘The Economic Times’, in its editorial, apparently expressed its solidarity with the pharma industry, in general, to do away with drug price control in India. The key reason for this advocacy, as I could sense, is to encourage the drug players to grow by making more profits. I respect this view of the editor will all humility. However, the point that I am unable to ferret out though, what happens to especially the poor patients in such an eventuality. With hands-on experience in the pharma industry over several decades, it appears to me that the editorial suggestions, as well, grossly lack in requisite depth of understanding of the core issue.
  • On November 09, 2016, quite opposite to what the above editorial of ‘The Economic Times’, the current global CEO of GlaxoSmithKline – Sir Andrew Witty, in an interview, strongly argued in favor of the necessity of drug price control in India, that improves access to medicines for a vast majority of the country’s population. To substantiate this point Sir Andrew said in another interview on the same day, “We’ve seen demand of products jump 45 percent after the price is cut by 20 percent. The problem arises when we don’t have supply to cater to the demand, leaving patients frustrated. A bit more predictability (on the part of government) will help.”
  • As if this diametrically opposite views are not enough, on November 10, 2016, the well-known civil society organization – ‘All India Drug Action Network (AIDAN)’, reportedly sent legal notices to the CEO of Niti Aayog CEO and secretaries to the Health Ministry, Department of Pharmaceuticals and Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion over their talks to cut the powers of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA). AIDAN has termed this Government move “anti-national” and “anti-people”, further adding that it affects an ongoing case at the Supreme Court over various aspects of the drug price control.

In this article, I shall restrict myself to the pharma related issue of the past week, especially on the interesting advocacy through editorial, against the drug price control in India. Simultaneously, I shall also underscore its relevance in the country, primarily to improve access to medicines for millions of Indians, as articulated by one of the leading voices from the global pharma industry.

Is the yardstick of judging pharma industry different?

This particular question floats in my mind because of several reasons. One such is, almost regularly sponsoring fully paid trips for doctors, especially in an exotic foreign land, by many pharma companies. Such practices of the drug companies are generally inferred, more often than not spearheaded by a large section of the media, as dubious means of the organization to entice, or influence prescribing decisions of physicians in favor of their respective high priced brands, ignoring the health and economic interest of patients.

In similar context, just after having a quick glance over a not so important article, written on various operations at the headquarter of a global drug company situated in a beautiful locale of the world, when one focuses the fine print at the end as a disclaimer, which reads: “This reporter was in (name of the country) on an invitation by (name of the global company)…, do the readers arrive at the same conclusion on ‘gratification’, as above, and its consequent possible outcome on pharma related writings of these reporters?

Can the concerned members of the ‘Fourth Estate’ possibly claim desired intellectual independence in their analysis of a situation involving such companies or their trade associations, even after the above disclaimer? Or for that matter, related publications too, which allow acceptance of such avoidable ‘gratis’ by its reporters? Shouldn’t such incidences, whenever these happen, irrespective of who availed these, be perceived in the same light?

In the current scenario, this issue is something for us to seriously ponder. This is mainly because, for following similar practices, why should there be two different yardsticks to gauge the quality of professional independence of two different otherwise highly respectable professions?

This reminds me of a great pharma reporter, writing for an internationally acclaimed business daily, mainly on the drug industry and healthcare. I met him in India a few years back on his invitation. Although, I shall not take either his or his paper’s name. This is to show respect to our free and frank interaction. He flew down to India with his employer paying all the pharma reporting work related expenses. He met with all those in the Indian drug industry that he wanted to, primarily to capture the nuances of the thought pattern of large and small Indian pharma players. I was so impressed with his intellect, and independent professional outlook, like all those who met him during his that specific visit to India. Even now, I can feel his independent perspective, as I read his articles. It would be great to experience similar feelings, while reading pharma related articles and editorials, in various publications of my own country. At the same time, I shall be delighted to be proved wrong regarding any such possibilities in this area.

That said, I shall now move on to the relevance of drug price control in India.

Any relevance of drug price control in a ‘Free Market Economy’?

No doubt, this is a very pertinent question. Equally pertinent answers are also available in a 2014 paper titled, “Competition Issues in the Indian Pharmaceuticals Sector” of Delhi School Economics (DSE). The paper deals with issues related to failure of ‘Free Market Economy’, despite intense competition, especially for branded generic drugs in India.

Quoting a practicing surgeon, the DSE article states: “Sometimes it could be just plain ignorance about the availability of a cheaper alternative that makes doctors continue to prescribe costlier brands. But one cannot ignore the role of what is euphemistically called marketing “incentive”, which basically mean the inappropriate influence pharmaceutical companies exert on doctors. This runs deep. Hospitals choose to stock only certain drugs in their in-house pharmacies and insist that hospitalized patients buy drugs only from the hospital pharmacy. Drug companies sell drugs to hospitals at a price much lower than what the patient is charged, further incentivizing the hospital to stock their products. The cheaper brands often get left out in this game.”

Further, in an ideal free-market economic model, for all approved branded generics with exactly the same formulation, having the same claimable efficacy, safety and quality standards, though marketed by different pharma companies, competitive forces should prompt some parity in their pricing.

Any generic brand with exactly the same formulation as others and offering the same therapeutic value, but costing significantly more, should ideally attract a lesser number of customers, if and where purchase decisions are taken by the consumers directly. However, for prescription medicines it’s not so. The well proven process of consumers exercising their own choice to select a brand, mostly influenced by advertising or word of mouth, does not happen at all.

The Government attributes ‘Market Failure’ for pharmaceuticals:

In its price notification dated July 10, 2014, the NPPA has categorically stated the following:

  • There exist huge inter-brand price differences in branded-generics, which is indicative of a severe market failure, as different brands of the same drug formulation, which are identical to each other in terms of active ingredient(s), strength, dosage, route of administration, quality, product characteristics, and intended use, vary disproportionately in terms of price.
  • It is observed that, the different brands of the drug formulation may sometimes differ in terms of binders, fillers, dyes, preservatives, coating agents, and dissolution agents, but these differences are not significant in terms of therapeutic value.
  • In India the market failure for pharmaceuticals can be attributed to several factors, but the main reason is that the demand for medicines is largely prescription driven and the patient has very little choice in this regard.
  • Market failure alone may not constitute sufficient grounds for government intervention, but when such failure is considered in the context of the essential role of pharmaceuticals play in the area of public health, which is a social right, such intervention becomes necessary, especially when exploitative pricing makes medicines generally unaffordable and beyond the reach of most and also puts the huge financial burden in terms of out-of-pocket expenditure on health care.

Civil Society echoed the same sentiment:

In this context, it is important to note that seven large Civil Society Organizations in a letter of August 20, 2014 addressed to Mr. Ananth Kumar, the present Minister of Chemicals and Fertilizers with a copy to Prime Minister Modi, articulated similar views, as follows:

“Limiting all price regulation only to a list of 348 medicines and specified dosages and strengths in the DPCO 2013 goes against the policy objective of making medicines affordable to the public. The National List of Essential Medicines, a list of 348 rational and cost-effective medicines, is not the basis for production, promotion and prescription in India. In reality the most frequently prescribed and consumed medicines are not listed in the NLEM.”

Last week, AIDAN has also indicated that the reported Government move to curtail the power vested on the NPPA for drug price, affects an ongoing case at the Supreme Court over various aspects of the drug price control.

Are medicines cheapest in India…really?

It is often highlighted that medicines cost much cheaper, if not the cheapest, in India. This is too simplistic a view on this subject. It compares the prevailing Indian drug prices in Rupee, against the prices of similar drugs in other countries, just by simple conversion of the foreign currencies, such as, US$ and Euro into Rupee. To make the comparison realistic and credible, Indian drug prices should be compared against the same in other countries, only after applying the following two critical parameters:

  • Purchasing Power Parity and Per Capita Income
  • Quantum of per capita ‘Out of Pocket Expenditure’ on drugs

The Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) with the help of academia and other experts had earlier deliberated on this issue in one of its reports on patented drug pricing. The report established that post application of the above two parameters, medicines in India are virtually as expensive as in the developed world, causing great inconvenience to the majority of patients in the country.

Hence, common patients expectedly look for some kind of critical intervention by the Government, at least, on the prices of essential drugs in India.

‘Cannot do away with Drug Price Control’ – said the New Government:

On August 24, 2015 in an interview with a national business daily, V K Subburaj, the Secretary of the Department of Pharmaceuticals commented, “Price control on drugs a shot in the arm for health care” and “the Government cannot do away with it.”

He argued, “A large section of the population is poor. Suddenly, your system is disturbed if you have to spend more on drugs. Drugs are an important component of health care expenditure.”

Accepting the fact that in India, big and small companies investing in research would need more money, Mr. Subburaj said, “In India, we can’t afford to remove controls as the burden of disease is high.”

All stakeholders expect that there is some predictability in what the Government says. Can the stand taken by the policymakers change in just a year’s time, probably wilting under industry pressure?

Conclusion:

The drug price control in India is in vogue since 1970, uninterruptedly. The retail audit data continue to indicate that the growth of the Indian pharma industry, over the last four and half decade long price control regime, has been nothing less than spectacular. This would consequently mean, increasing consumption of drugs, leading to improved access to medicines in India, including its hinterland, though may still not be good enough. Sir Andrew Witty of GSK also articulated the same view, just the last week. It’s a different story altogether that some of the industry sponsored expensive market surveys attempt to wish it away.

Coincidentally, at the commencement of drug price control regime in India in 1970, almost all the players in the ‘Top 10’ pharma league table of the country, were multi-national drug companies. Today the situation has just reversed. Out of ‘Top 10’, about seven are home grown drug companies. Many of these companies were born post 1970. Without frequent M&As by the pharma MNCs, this number could have been probably higher today.

By the way, what’s the span of drug price control in India really – just about 18 percent of the total domestic pharma market now? Around 80 percent of the local drug market continues to remain in the ‘free-pricing’ and ‘high-profit’ zone.

When it comes to profitability, it is worth mentioning, the promoter of the so called ‘low margin’ generic pharma company – Sun Pharma, is the second-richest person in India. He created his initial wealth from India, despite ostensible ‘growth stunting’ price control.

Keeping this in perspective, is it not baffling to fathom the reason behind a local business publication’s apparently endorsing the advocacy initiatives of pharma industry against drug price control through an editorial, when a well-regarded global pharma CEO expresses a strong favorable view in this regard?

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.

Millennial Generation Doctors And Patients: Changing Mindset, Aspirations, And Expectations

Posted on by
Reply

The term ‘Millennial Generation’ normally refers to the generation, born from 1980 onward, brought up using digital technology and mass media. According to ‘Millennial Mindset’ – a website dedicated to helping businesses understand millennial employees and new ways of working, the key attributes of this generation are broadly considered as follows:

  1. Technology Driven:
  2. Socially Conscious
  3. Collaborative

The millennial mindset:

The publication also indicates that the overall mindset of the millennial generation is also vastly different from the previous generations, which can fall into four categories:

  1. Personal freedom, Non-hierarchical, Interdependent, Connected, Networked, Sharing
  2. Instant gratification, Wide Knowledge, Test and learn, Fast paced, Always on, Innovative
  3. Fairness, Narcissistic, Purpose driven
  4. Balance, Eco-friendly and Experience focused

Seeks different professional ecosystem:

In the professional arena too, this new generation’s expectations from the professional ecosystem are often seen to be distinctly different, as they are generally seen to be:

  • Willing to make a meaningful professional contribution, mostly through self-learning
  • Seek maintaining a reasonable balance between work and personal life
  • Prefer flexible work environment, unwilling to be rigidly bound by convention, tradition, or set rules
  • Impatient for fast both personal and organizational growth, often on the global canvas

The ‘Millennial Generation’ in India:

The millennium generation with a different mindset, aspirations and value system, already constitutes a major chunk of the Indian demography. According to the 2011 Census, out of estimated 1.2 billion population, around 701 million Indians (60 percent) are under 30 years of age, which also very often referred to as ‘demographic dividend’ of India.

Currently, a large number of Indians belonging to the millennial generation are entering into the work stream of both national and International companies operating in the country.

The challenge in healthcare arena:

In the healthcare sphere too, we now come across a fast increasing number of technology savvy and digitally inclined patients and doctors of this generation. Accurately gauging, and then meeting with their changing expectations has indeed been a challenging task for the pharma companies, and the related service providers.

Their expectations from the brands and other services, as provided by the pharma companies, don’t seem to be quite the same as before, either, so are the individually preferred communication formats, the way of processing, and quickly cross-verifying the product and other healthcare information. Before arriving at any decision, they were found to keenly observe the way brands are marketed, their intrinsic value, type and the quality of interface for engagement with them by the companies, whenever required.

Thus, from the pharma business perspective, qualitatively different strategic approaches, to both the millennial doctors and patients, would be of increasing importance and an ongoing exercise. The goal posts would also keep moving continuously. Achieving proficiency in this area with military precision, I reckon, would differentiate the men from the boys, in pursuit of business performance excellence.

In this article, I shall primarily discuss on the changing mindset and needs of the patients and doctors of the ‘millennial generation’.

A. Treating millennial patients differently:

Around 81 percent of millennial doctors, against 57 percent of older generation doctors think that millennial patients require a different relationship with their doctors than non-millennial patients. About 66 percent of millennial doctors actually act upon this and change their approach, as the survey reported.

The difference:

The key differences on millennial doctors’ treating millennial patients, are mainly in the following areas:

  • Expects more, doesn’t get swayed away: Millennial doctors are more likely to advise the millennial patients to do additional research on their own for discussion. 71 percent of millennial doctors believe it’s helpful for patients to do online research before their appointment. However, they don’t get swayed by requests from more-informed patients, as only 23 percent of millennial doctors say they are influenced by patient requests when it comes to prescribing a treatment, whereas 41 percent of non-millennial doctors report finding those requests influential.
  • Gets into the details: The millennial doctors are more likely to simplify and streamline explanations for older patients, whereas non- millennial doctors were more likely to simplify explanations for millennial patients too, treating them exactly the same way.
  • Relies on digital resources: Millennial doctors rely mostly on using digital resources for treating millennial patients, but only around 56.5 percent of them do so for non-millennial patients.

B. Treating millennial doctors differently:

For effective business engagement and ensure commensurate financial outcomes, pharma companies will first require to know and deeply understand the changing mindset, expectations, and aspirations of the millennial doctors, then work out tailor-made strategic approaches, accordingly, to achieve the set objectives.

Top 3 expectations from the pharma industry:

According to a June 2016 special survey report on Healthcare Marketing to Millennials, released by inVentive Health agencies, the top 3 expectations of millennial and non-millennial doctors from the pharma industry, are as follows:

Rank Millennial Doctors % Rank Non- Millennial Doctors %
1. Unbranded Disease Information 67 1. Unbranded Disease Information 58
2. Discussion Guides 48 2. Latest Specific News 46
3. Adherence Support 40 3. Healthy Life Style Information 42

Pharma players, therefore, can provide customized offerings and services, in various innovative platforms, based on these top 3 different expectations of millennial and non-millennial doctors, to achieve much needed critical competitive edge for a sustainable business performance.

Brand communication process needs a relook:

The above report also noted a number of the interesting trends related to the millennial doctors. I am quoting below just a few of those:

  • Only 16 percent of millennial doctors found pharma promotional materials to be influential when considering a new treatment compared to 48 percent of non-millennial doctors who do.
  • 79 percent of them refer to information from pharmaceutical companies only after they’ve found that information elsewhere.
  • 65 percent of these doctors indicated, they did not trust information from pharmaceutical companies to be fair and balanced, while only 48 percent of their older peers shared that sentiment.
  • 50 percent found educational experiences that are driven by their peers to be the most relevant for learning and considering about new treatments, against 18 percent of non-millennial physicians.
  • 52 percent of them, when learning about new treatment options, favor peers as their conversation partners.
  • They are much more likely to rely on a third-party website for requisite product or treatment information
  • 60 percent of millennial doctors are more likely to see a pharma rep, if they offer important programs for their patients, compared to only 47 percent of non-millennial doctors. This also reflects greater patient centric values of the millennial doctors.
  • However, an overwhelming 81percent of millennial doctors believe that any type of ‘Direct To Consumer (DTC)’ promotion makes their job harder, because patients ask for medications they don’t need.
  • 41 percent of millennial doctors prefer a two-way and an in-person interaction, against just 11 percent of them with online reps. Here, it should be noted that this has to be an ‘interaction’, not just predominantly a monologue, even while using an iPad or any other android tablets.

Redesigning processes to meet changing expectations and needs:

Thus, to create requisite value, and ensure effective engagement with millennial doctors, the pharma companies may consider exploring the possibility of specifically designing their entire chain of interface with Millennials, right from promotional outreach to adherence tools, and from medical communications to detailing, as the survey report highlights. I shall mention below just a few of those as examples:

Communication platforms:

For personal, more dynamic and effective engagement, non-personal digital platforms – driving towards personal interactions with company reps, together with facilitating collaboration between their professional peer groups, came out as of immense importance to them.

Adherence and outcomes:

There is a need for the pharma companies to move the strategic engagement needle more towards patient outcomes. This is mainly because, medication adherence is a large part of the patient outcome equation. It involves a wide range of partnerships, such as, between patients and physicians, and also the physicians and pharma players. This particular need can be best met by offering exactly the type of collaborative approach that millennial doctors favor.

Medical communication:

Redesigning the core narrative of medical communication around a disease state and product, engaging the wisdom and enthusiasm of scientific, clinical, and educational leaders primarily to serve a well-articulated noble cause, are likely to fetch desired results, allaying the general distrust of millennial doctors on the pharma companies, in general.

Medical representative:

Earning the trust of the millennial doctors by respecting, accepting, and appealing to their value systems, is of utmost importance for the medical reps. To achieve this, drug companies would require to equip their reps with tools and programs that offer value in terms of patient support and adherence, while demonstrating compelling outcomes with a positive patient experience, and greater efficiency in treatment decisions.

Building reputation:

The “Purpose Generation” – that’s how millennials are often referred to. In that sense, to build a long lasting business reputation among them, pharma companies need to be in sync with this new generation.

Weaving a trusting relationship with them involves meeting all those needs that these doctors value, such as, adherence solutions, innovative patient support programs, and creating shared value for communities. This would mean, for many drug companies, charting an almost uncharted frontier, where there aren’t many footsteps to follow.

Need to induct younger generation to top leadership positions faster:

To capture these changes with precision, and designing effective engagement strategies for millennial patients and doctors accordingly, an open, innovative and virtually contemporary mindset with a pair of fresh eyes, are essential. As against this, even today, many ‘Baby Boomers’ (born approximately between 1946 and 1956), who have already earned the status of senior citizens, meticulously nursing a not so flexible mind with traditional views, still keep clutching on to the key top leadership positions in the pharma industry, both global and local.

This prevailing trend encompasses even those who are occupying just ornamental corporate leadership positions, mostly for PR purpose, besides being the public face of the organization, sans any significant and direct operational or financial responsibilities. Nevertheless, by pulling all available corporate levers and tricks, they hang-on to the job. In that way, these senior citizens delay the process of change in the key leadership positions with younger generation of professionals, who understand not just the growing Millennials much better, but also the ever changing market dynamics, and intricate customer behavior, to lead the organization to a greater height of all round success.

I hasten to add, a few of the younger global head honcho have now started articulating a different vision altogether, which is so relevant by being a community benefit oriented and patient centric, in true sense. These icons include the outgoing GSK chief Sir Andrew Witty, who explains how ‘Big Pharma’ can help the poor and still make money, and the Allergan CEO Brent Saunders promising to keep drug prices affordable. Being rather small in number, these sane voices get easily drowned in the din of other global head honchos, curling their lips at any other view point of less self-serving in nature. Quite understandably, their local or surrounding poodles, toe exactly the same line, often displaying more gusto, as many believe.

Conclusion:

The triumph of outdated colonial mindset within the drug industry appears to be all pervasive, even today. It keeps striving hard to implement the self-serving corporate agenda, behind the façade of ‘Patient Centricity’. When the demography is changing at a faster pace in many important countries, such as India, a sizeable number of the critical decision makers don’t seem to understand, and can’t possibly fathom with finesse and precision, the changing mindset, aspirations and expectations of the millennial generation doctors and patients.

Expectedly, this approach is increasingly proving to be self-defeating, if not demeaning to many. It’s affecting the long term corporate performance, continually inviting the ire of the stakeholders, including Governments in various countries.

From this perspective, as the above survey results unravel, the millennial doctors and patients, with their changing mindset, aspirations, expectations and demands, look forward to an environment that matches up with the unique characteristics and values of their own generation.

To excel in this evolving scenario, especially in India – with one of the youngest demographic profiles, proper understanding of the nuances that’s driving this change, by the top echelon of the pharma management, is of utmost importance. Only then, can any strategic alignment of corporate business interests with the expectations of fast growing Millennials take shape, bridging the ongoing trust deficit of the stakeholders, as the pharma industry moves ahead with an accelerated pace.

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.

 

Does Patent Expiry Matter Less For Difficult To Copy Drugs?

Posted on by
Reply

“Patent expiry matters much less for difficult to copy drugs”.

Not so long ago, this is what many used to believe in the pharma industry. However, looking at the current trend involving the tech savvy generic players, it appears, gone are those days even for the home grown companies in India. As we witness today, a number of global generic players, including some from India, are overcoming the tough challenge of technological barrier of the original drugs with technology, boldly and squarely, and that too with reasonably good speed.

A global CEO felt quite the same:

Possibly encouraged by this commercial dogma, the Chief Executive of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Sir Andrew Witty reportedly felt in not too distant past that his company’s blockbuster drug Advair/Seretide, used for the treatment of asthma, would continue to remain a major product, despite losing US patent in end 2010. Witty thought so considering the intricate technology involved in making its high tech inhalation drug delivery system with exacting precision.

Technology based entry barrier:

Although, Advair/Seretide is a respiratory inhalation drug, it is not quite like a typical aerosol inhaler consisting of a pressurized canister filled with liquid medicine formulation. In such system, as the canister is compressed, the liquid inside comes out as a spray that is breathable in an amount as required for desirable clinical efficacy for the patients.

With the application of complex technology, Advair/Seretide was formulated not as a liquid, but as pre-determined fixed dose combination of powders that patients inhale into their respiratory tracts with a device called ‘Diskus’, which involves a complex and difficult to copy inhaler technology with a long patent life.

This precision technology was expected to create the requisite entry barrier for generic equivalents of this important medicine.

“Diskus” patent to continue:

It is important to note, though Advair/Seretide had gone off patent in end 2010, the patent protection for the “Diskus” device that dispenses the powder version of the fixed dose drugs combination, continues till 2016. For the inhaler device that dispenses the aerosol version of the same drugs, the patent remains valid until 2025.

New USFDA guidance:

Keeping these factors in mind, the USFDA in its latest guidance has clearly enunciated the characteristics that an inhaler should have, including a similar size and shape to Diskus. This new USFDA guidance for inhaled drugs, like Advair/Seretide, now requires only “relatively basic” preclinical tests and a short clinical trial.

Many believe that this new guidance is mainly to ensure that other generic devices also qualify for the GSK’s asthma drug combo, after its patent expiry.

Nevertheless a challenging task:

Despite this new USFDA guidance for inhaled drugs, some large generic manufacturers apprehended, even way back in 2010, that they doubt whether it will be possible for them to adequately replicate Advair/Seretide to meet the stringent “substitution” requirements of the USFDA on generics. This is exactly what Witty had envisaged earlier.

Almost two years after its patent expiry, in October 2012, the world’s largest generic drug maker Teva also announced that the company does not expect to see true substitutes for Advair/Seretide before 2018.

No immediate sales impact post-patent expiry:

As a result, in 2012, even a couple of years after its patent expiry, Advair/Seretide could successfully weather the impending storm, though GSK reported a lackluster overall business performance. The brand at that time was virtually immune to substitution threats from generic equivalents. The key reason being, as stated above, much unlike a patented chemical drug substance, the ‘Diskus’ system of the GSK inhaler is a hell of a task to copy by meeting the regulatory requirements of substitution.

In 2013, close to three years after its patent expiry, Advair/Seretide ranked fourth within the top 10 global best-selling drugs of that year, clocking annual revenue of US $8.25 billion.

The first competition:

In the midst of all these, the first generic equivalent of Advair/Serevent with a new inhalation device, carrying a name AirFluSal Forspiro from the Sandoz unit of Novartis, started warming up to obtain regulatory approval from several countries within the European Union (EU).

The product was first approved in Denmark on December, 2013 with subsequent marketing authorizations received in Germany, Sweden, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Norway.

The heat started being felt now:

The overall position of the brand started changing thereafter. According to published reports, sales trend of Advair/Seretide in Europe and other markets are on the decline in 2014. In Europe, the drop was around 3 percent and in the US around 19 percent in the last quarter, due to a combined impact of many factors.

According to Bloomberg, the sales of Advair/Seretide are expected to drop from US$8.25 billion in 2013 to US$5.9 billion in 2016 with the entry of generics.

A large and growing market to invest into:

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), in every 10 seconds, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) that includes conditions such as chronic bronchitis and emphysema kills one person globally. It is expected to be the third leading cause of death worldwide by 2030.  However, though more number of people suffers from asthma globally, its mortality rate is still much less, WHO says.

Bloomberg estimates that COPD market, including asthma, is expected to reach over US$30 billion by 2018.

Cipla came next crossing the ‘technology hurdle’:

Though the leader in the global generic market – Teva, expressed its inability to introduce the generic version of Advair/Seretide before 2018, this month, the Indian pharma major Cipla introduced its version of the product in two European countries, just next to Novartis. Consequently, Cipla demonstrated its ability to overcome the technological hurdle of the product faster than most others and mastering the intricate NDDS technology in record time, with precision.

The Cipla product is named as ‘Serroflo’ in Germany and ‘Salmeterol/Fluticasone Cipla’ in Sweden. As reported in the media quoting Cipla Chairman Dr. Yusuf Hamied, the product has also been launched in Croatia. By now, Cipla has obtained regulatory approvals of this product in 10 countries in total, with an approval pending in the GSK’s own domestic turf, the United Kingdom (UK). Other country-wise launches in Europe would probably take place much before the end of 2014, according to Dr. Hamied.

The product is expected to be launched in the US in the next three to four year’s time, though one media report mentioned about its 2015 launch in that market. Dr. Hamied also said that his company is now planning its first-ever manufacturing plant in America, which might focus on producing HIV medicines.

On a conservative estimate, the market analysts expect Cipla to generate around US$50 million in sales from the EU markets by 2016 and around US$110 million by 2018, as the company gains increasing market access with not more than 4-5 generic competitors competing in this segment.

Be that as it may, getting regulatory approval for launch of a generic version of Advair/Seretide in the regulated markets, by itself, is a huge achievement of technological prowess that Cipla has demonstrated, yet again.

Not too many generic competition expected:

Because of high quality technological requirements to develop a replaceable generic version of the GSK product, not too much competition is expected in this segment.

Thus far, another global generic drug major Mylan is expected to file for a generic version of Advair/Seretide in the US by the third quarter of 2015 for a 2016 launch. Besides Cipla and Novartis, Mylan, Teva and Actavis are expected come out with the generic version of this drug.

Opportunities in ‘difficult to copy’ drugs:

According to a recent ‘RnR Market Research Report’, over 1,400 drugs with New Drug Delivery System (NDDS) have since been approved globally. This includes inhalation devices too.

The oral drugs contribute the largest share of the overall NDDS market with over 52 percent of the total pie. This segment is expected to attain a turnover of over US$90 billion by 2016 at a CAGR of 11 percent. The injectable new drug delivery market is expected to reach a turnover of over US $29billion by 2015, according to this report.

I have deliberated this subject in one of my earlier blog posts titled. “Moving Up The Generic Pharma Value Chain”.

Another high tech area – biosimilar drugs:

As the high priced biologic drugs of the innovator companies go off patent, large molecule biosimilar drugs, involving high technology, would emerge as another lucrative growth opportunity for the generic players having requisite wherewithal.

Recombinant vaccines, erythropoietin, recombinant insulin, monoclonal antibody, interferon alpha, granulocyte cell stimulating factor like products are now being manufactured by a number of domestic biotech companies. Some of the Indian companies that have already entered into the biosimilar segment are Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL), Lupin, Biocon, Panacea Biotech, Wockhardt, Glenmark, Emcure, Bharat Biotech, Serum Institute, Hetero, Intas and Reliance Life Sciences, besides others.

The ultimate objective of all these Indian companies is to get regulatory approval of their respective biosimilar products in the US and the EU either on their own or through collaborative initiatives.

Overall improvement in the quality of ANDA filings:

In the last few years, overall quality of ANDA filings of the domestic Indian pharma players has also improved significantly. Their regulatory filing schedules now include many complex molecules, injectibles, oral contraceptives, ophthalmic preparations, inhalers/other drug delivery systems and biosimilars, beside Para IV/FTFs. All these are now contributing a growing share in their new product initiatives for the regulated markets.

Conclusion:

In the largest pharma market of the world – the United States, global generic companies are increasingly facing cutthroat price competition with steep price erosion, registering mixed figures of business performance and growth.

However, a new trend is fast emerging. Even when global innovator companies are including increasing number of difficult to copy medicines in their product portfolio, some pharma players are reaping a rich harvest by moving up the value chain with the generic versions of those products, post patent expiry. These copycats offer much higher margin than non-differentiated generics.

Some Indian generic companies too have started focusing on building value added, difficult to manufacture, and technology intensive generic product portfolios in various therapy areas. DRL is reportedly all set to take its complex generic drug Fondaparinux sodium injection to Canada and two other emerging markets.

Those Indian pharma companies, which would be able to develop a robust product portfolio of complex generics and other differentiated formulations for the global market, would now be much better placed in positioning themselves significantly ahead of the rest, both in terms of top and the bottom line performance.

The myth, as epitomized in the good old saying, “Patent expiry matters less for difficult to copy drugs”, seems to be partly true in delaying entry of generics immediately after the end of the monopoly period, at least, for now. However, I reckon, this gap of delay would eventually get much reduced, if not eliminated altogether, as we move on. Armed with cutting edge technology Cipla has almost busted the myth, as it came close second to Novartis with the launch of a complex generic equivalent of Advair/Seretide in the EU and other markets.

Pharma majors of the country, such as, DRL, Cipla, Lupin and Biocon, to name a few, are taking great strides, setting examples for many others to emulate and excel in this area. The groundswell has already begun for a long haul global journey of the Indian pharma into the El Dorado of high tech generics fetching higher rewards.

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.

 

No More Payment for Prescriptions: Pharma at A Crossroads?

Posted on by
Reply
  • “ARE there different and more effective ways of operating than perhaps the ways we as an industry have been operating over the last 30, 40 years?”
  • “TRY and make sure we stay in step with how the world is changing.”

Those are some introspective outlooks of Sir Andrew Witty – the Chief Executive of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) related to much contentious pharmaceutical prescription generation processes now being practiced by the drug industry in general, across the world.

The ‘Grand Strategy’ to effectively address these issues, in all probability, was still on the drawing board, when Sir Andrew reportedly announced on December 16, 2013 that GSK:

  • Will no longer pay healthcare professionals to speak on its behalf about its products or the diseases they treat to audiences who can prescribe or influence prescribing.
  • Will stop tying compensation of sales representatives to number of prescriptions the doctors write.
  • Will stop providing financial support to doctors to attend medical conferences.

These iconoclastic intents, apparently moulded in the cast of ethics and values and quite possibly an outcome of various unpleasant experiences, including in China, is expected to take shape worldwide by 2016, as the report indicates.

Acknowledgment of unbefitting global practices:

Reacting to this announcement, some renowned experts, as quoted in the above report, said, “It’s a modest acknowledgment of the fact that learning from a doctor who is paid by a drug company to give a talk about its products isn’t the best way for doctors to learn about those products.”

The world envisages a refreshing change:

A December 11 article in the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) stated that there exists a serious financial ‘Conflict of Interest (COI)’ in the relationship between many Academic Medical Centers (AMCs) and the drug and medical device industries spanning across a wide range of activities, including:

  • Promotional speakers
  • Industry-funded ‘Continuing Medical Education (CME)’ programs
  • Free access of sales representatives to its faculty, trainees and staff
  • The composition of purchasing and formulary committees

Such types of relationships between doctors and the pharmaceutical companies across the world, including in India, as studies revealed, have been custom crafted with the sole purpose of influencing prescription behavior of doctors towards more profitable costlier drugs, many of which offer no superior value as compared to already available cheaper generic alternatives.

Cracking the nexus is imperative:

Yet another report says, “Ghost-writing scandals, retracted journal papers, off-label marketing settlements, and a few high-profile faculty dust-ups triggered new restrictions at some schools.”

To address this pressing issue of COI, cracking the Doctor-Industry alleged nexus, which is adversely impacting the patients’ health interest, is absolutely imperative. An expert task force convened by the ‘Pew Charitable Trusts’ in 2012, made recommendations in 15 areas to protect the integrity of medical education/training and the practice of medicine within AMCs.

Some of those key recommendations involving relationships of medical profession with pharmaceutical companies are as follows:

  • No gifts or meals of any value
  • Disclosure of all industry relationships to institutions
  • No industry funded speaking engagement
  • No industry supported Continuing Medical Education (CME)
  • No participation at industry-sponsored lectures and promotional or educational events
  • No meeting with pharmaceutical sales representative
  • No industry-supported clinical fellowships
  • No ghostwriting and honorary authorship
  • No ‘Consulting Relationship’ for product marketing purpose

The above report also comments, “if medical schools follow new advice from a Pew Charitable Trusts task force, ‘No Reps Allowed’ signs will soon be on the door of every academic medical center in the United States.”

MNC pharma associations showcase voluntary ‘Codes of Marketing Practices’: 

Most of the global pharma associations have and showcase self-regulating ‘Codes of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices’. However, the above GSK decision and hefty fines that are being levied to many large global companies almost regularly in different countries for marketing ‘malpractices’, prompt a specific question: Do these well-hyped ‘Codes’ really work on the ground or are merely expressions of good intent captured in attractive templates and released in the cyberspace for image building?

Global status overview:

In this context an updated article of December 11, 2013 states that Medical Faculty, Department Chairs and Deans continue to sit on the Board of Directors of many drug companies. At the same time, many pharma players support programs of various medical schools and teaching hospitals through financial grants.  Company sales representatives also enjoy free access to hospital doctors to promote their products.

In most states of the United States, doctors are required to take accredited CMEs. The pharmaceutical industry provides a substantial part of billions of dollars that are spent on the CME annually, using this support as marketing tools. This practice is rampant even in India.

The above article also highlights incidences of lawsuits related to ‘monetary persuasion’ offered to doctors. In one such incidence, two patients reportedly fitted with faulty hips manufactured by Stryker Orthopedics discovered that the manufacturer paid their surgeon between US$ 225,000 and US$ 250,000 for “consultation services,” and between US$ 25,000 and US$ 50,000 for other services.

However, since August 2013, ‘Physician Payment Sunshine Act’ of the United States demands full disclosure of gifts and payments made to doctors by the pharma players and allied businesses. Effective March 31, 2014, all companies must report these details to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), or else would face punitive fines as high as US$1 million per year. CMS would publish records of these payments to a public website by September 31, 2014. India needs to take a lesson from this Act to help upholding ethics and values in the healthcare system of the country.

Overview of status in India:

As reported by both International and National media, similar situation prevails in India too.

Keeping such ongoing practices in mind and coming under intense media pressure, the Medical Council of India (MCI) on December 10, 2009 amended the “Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations 2002″ for the medical profession of India. The notification specified stricter regulations for doctors in areas, among others, gifts, travel facilities/ hospitality, including Continuing Medical Education (CME), cash or monetary grants, medical research, maintaining professional Autonomy, affiliation and endorsement in their relationship with the ‘pharmaceutical and allied health sector industry’.

However, inability of the Indian regulator to get these guidelines effectively implemented and monitored, has drawn sharp flak from other stakeholders, as many third party private vendors are reportedly coming up as buffers between the industry and the physicians to facilitate the ongoing illegal financial transactions, hoodwinking the entire purpose, blatantly.

Moreover, it is difficult to fathom, why even four years down the line, the Department of Pharmaceuticals of the Government of India is yet to implement its much hyped ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’ for the entire pharmaceutical industry in India. 

Learning from other self-regulatory ‘Codes of Pharma Marketing Practices’, in my view, a law like, ‘Physician Payment Sunshine Act’ of the United States, demanding public disclosure of gifts and all other payments made to doctors by the pharma players and allied businesses, would be much desirable and more meaningful in India.

Conclusion:

Research studies do highlight that young medical graduates passing out from institutions enforcing gift bans and following other practices, as mentioned above, are less likely to prescribe expensive brands having effective cheaper alternatives.

The decision of GSK of not making payments to any doctor, either for participating or speaking in seminars/conferences, to influence prescription decision in favor of its brands is indeed bold and laudable. This enunciation, if implemented in letter and spirit, could trigger a paradigm shift in the the prescription demand generation process for pharmaceuticals brands.

However, this pragmatic vow may fall short of stemming the rot in other critical areas of pharma business. One such recent example is reported clinical data fabrication in a large Japanese study for Diovan (Valsatran) of Novartis AG. Had patient records been used in their entirety, the Kyoto Heart Study paper, as the report indicates, would have had a different conclusion.

That said, if all in the drug industry, at least, ‘walk the line’ as is being demarcated   by GSK, a fascinating cerebral marketing warfare to gain top of mind brand recall of the target doctors through well strategized value delivery systems would ultimately prevail, separating men from the boys.

Thus, the moot point to ponder now:

Would other pharma players too jettison the decades old unethical practices of ‘paying to doctors for prescriptions’, directly or indirectly, just for the heck of maintaing ethics, values and upholding patients’ interest?

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.