Monthly Archives: June 2019

Continues ‘The Cat And Mouse Game’ In Pharma Business?

Posted on by
Reply

Many are already aware of the critical factors that make generic drugs so important for patients – virtually for all. These don’t just facilitate greater access to health care – offering affordable alternatives to high-priced off-patent innovative drugs. This is as relevant in the largest pharma market in the world – the United States (US), just as in India. Let me illustrate this point with two examples – one from the US and the other from India.

According to US-FDA, ‘9 out of 10 prescriptions filled, are for generic drugs’ in the United states, as off-patent branded generic drugs cost more than their generic equivalents. The US drug regulator explains, ‘Increasing the availability of generic drugs helps to create competition in the marketplace, which then helps to make treatment more affordable and increases access to healthcare for more patients.’

However, unlike the US, there prevails a unique perception difference even within generic drugs – between branded and unbranded generics. The Indian Survey, undertaken to review and analyze various facts on branded and equivalent unbranded generic medicines, found a huge difference in prices between them in the country. Interestingly, as the researchers also noted, although, more consumers want an economical alternative to high priced branded generics, most physicians do not prefer unbranded generic medicines.

There is another important point worth noting regarding India made generic drugs. Although, Indian pharma sector caters to around 40 percent of generic demand in the US, as IBEF reports, many Americans nurture serious apprehensions on the quality of generic drugs manufactured even by India’s top drug companies. 

This is quite similar to apprehension that exists in India between the quality branded and unbranded generic medicines in India. The only difference is – the above perception in India is not based on impartial and credible scientific studies, whereas it is not so in America. The New York Times report, published on May 11, 2019 vindicates this point. It questioned: “Americans Need Generic Drugs. But Can They Trust Them? The fake quality-control data, bird infestations and toxic impurities at the overseas plants that could be making your medication.” Incidentally, there aren’t any such large-scale accusations regarding dubious quality of drugs manufactured by Big Pharma. 

On the other hand, big pharma players have long been accused of drug price gouging or price-fixing of life-saving drugs, primarily to maximize earnings by ‘extending’ product patent-life. Curiously, in recent times, even the generic drug players are being accused of following a similar practice. Thus, in this article, I shall explore how generic drug players are also trying to hoodwink measures to bring down the drug price, either through price control or through the encouragement of intense competition – playing a ‘cat and mouse game’, as it were, whenever an opportunity comes. If it continues and probably it will, what is the way ahead? Let me begin by recapitulating a historic pace-setting move in the global generic market by an Indian drug player.

A historic pace-setting move by an Indian generic drug player:

Being a major exporter of generic drugs in many developed, developing and even poor countries around the world, India is often termed as ‘the pharmacy of the world.’ That apart, a historical move in this space, by a top domestic player – Cipla, earned global accolades, at the turn of this new millennium. In 2001, Cipla slashed the price of its triple-therapy drug ”cocktails” for HIV-AIDS – being sold by MNCs, ranging from USD 10,000/ USD 15,000 a year to USD 350 a year per patient to a doctors’ group working in Africa.With the generic industry’s focus on a deeper bottom line, the scenario has changed now. Finding ways and means for the price increase, evading both competitive pressure and also drug price control, as in India, has turned into a ‘cat and mouse game’, as it were.

Generic drug pricing – ‘a cat and mouse game?’

Pricing pressure, especially for generic drugs, from patients, payers, politicians and governments, is gradually becoming more intense. More the pressure greater is the effort of affected players to come out of it, in any way –akin to a ‘cat and mouse game’, as it were. Although, it has recently started in the USA, the same exists in India, since 1970, when the first drug price control was introduced in the country. Intriguingly, in the midst of this toughest ever drug price control, phenomenal rise of almost all top Indian companies, including the top ranked company in the Indian pharma market commenced – from scratch. Nonetheless, to get a feel of how is this game being played out, let me start with the Indian scenario.

How this game is played in India to evade price control:

Instead of taking a deep dive into the history of drug price control in India, let me give a bird’s eye view of a few mechanisms, out of many, used to evade price control, since it commenced. The idea is to give just a feel of how this ‘cat and mouse game’ game pans out, with a few of such examples in a sequential order, since 1970, as much as possible, by:

  • Including price decontrolled molecule in the FDC formulations.
  • Replacing a price-controlled molecule by a similar decontrolled one, keeping the brand name unchanged, when the number of controlled molecules came down.
  • Making a major shift towards selling more of higher-priced decontrolled molecules, jettisoning low priced controlled molecules.
  • Resorting to vigorous campaigns, when the government started encouraging prescription of low-priced generic molecules, to ensure further shift to branded FDC prescriptions, alongside image enhancement of branded generics over equivalent unbranded ones. Its outcome is visible in the above Indian Survey on the image of branded and unbranded generics.

Has Indian pharma industry succeeded in this game?

It appears so and gets reflected in the CAGR of the industry. According to IBEF, “The country’s pharmaceutical industry is expected to expand at a CAGR of 22.4 per cent over 2015–20 to reach US$ 55 billion.” I underscore, this is value growth.

Thus, the point, I reckon, that the government should ponder: How both can happen, at the same time – price control is bringing down drug prices, extending real benefits to patients on the ground, and at the same time the industry is recording an impressive growth rate in value terms?  Whatever it means, let’s now try to explore, how such ‘cat and mouse game’ is being played to increase generic drug prices in the United States.

How similar game is played in the US to increase generic drug price:

On May 10, 2019, international media reported that ‘44 US states announced a lawsuit alleging an anti-competitive conspiracy to artificially inflate prices for more than 100 drugs, some by more than 1,000 percent.’ This lawsuit is based on an investigation involving a number of generic drug companies. The process, which took five-years to complete, accused twenty generic drug players. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, whose parent company is based in Israel was, reportedly, named as the ringleader of the price-fixing. The company raised prices of around 112 generic formulations.

Other companies, reportedly, named in the complaint, include Pfizer, Novartis subsidiary Sandoz, Mylan, and seven Indian drug companies, including Lupin, Aurobindo, Dr. Reddy’s, Wockhardt, Taro Pharmaceutical Industries (a subsidiary of Sun Pharma) and Glenmark. Some of the 15 senior company executives who were individually named in the lawsuit for their involvementin this alleged “multibillion-dollar fraud ”belong to Teva, Sandoz and Mylan.

The ‘cat and mouse game’ in this case is slightly different. Instead of government price control, the US drug regulator encouraged intense generic competition to bring down the price. When the priced did not come down as expected, the State of Connecticut, reportedly, began investigating select generic drug price increases in July 2014. Subsequently, other states also joined the investigation, and uncovered the reason for prices not coming down.

According to the complaint, between July 2013 and January 2015, Teva significantly raised prices on approximately 112 different generic drugs. Of those 112 different drugs, Teva had colluded with its competitors on at least 86 of them. The complaint noted: “Teva had understandings with its highest quality competitors to lead and follow each other’s price increases, and did so with great frequency and success, resulting in many billions of dollars of harm to the national economy over a period of several years.” In this way, the impact of intense competition on drug prices, was made ineffective.

Not the first time, it was detected:

The 2019 anti-trust lawsuit against the generic drug makers may be ‘the biggest price-fixing scheme in the US history’, but not the first lawsuit of this kind in America. A similar lawsuit for illegal price-fixing against six generic companies, was filed by the states in 2016, as well, which is still being litigated. The 2019 case is a sweeping version of the same and is the result of a much wider investigation. It indicates, instead of taking corrective measures, the ‘cat and mouse game’ still continues. However, almost all the companies have vehemently denied this allegation.

Is this game existential in nature of the business?

One may well argue that such ‘cat and mouse game’ with the government is existential in nature, for the generic drug business. When price control or intense market competition brings down the price to such a level, it becomes a matter of survival of most businesses. There doesn’t seem to remain enough financial interest for them to remain in the market. If and when it happens, causing shortage of cheaper generic drugs, patients’ health interest gets very adversely affected. It also prompts the manufacturers to find a way out for the survival of the business. This is understandable. But it needs to be established, supported by scientific studies.

An off the cuff solution:

A general and off the cuff solution to the above issue would naturally be, there should be a right balance between affordability of most consumers and the business interest of the drug makers. This broad pointer is also right and understandable. But again, no one knows the expected upper limit of the generic drug profit margin for their manufacturers – where hardly any breakthrough and cost-intensive R&D is involved. Equally challenging is to know – below what margin, generic players, by and large, loose interest in this business?

What do some available facts indicate?

According to the year-end report of the Pharmaceutical Export Promotion Council (Pharmexcil) the total pharma exports from India has been pegged at USD 19.14 billion for 2018-19. This represents a growth of 10.72 per cent over USD 17.28 billion in thelast year. It further reported, “The top 25 export destinations contribute 76.52 per cent of the formulation exports amounting to USD 10.38 billion. Among these, the US continues to be the largest export destination with over 38.62 per cent of the total generic exports to that country at USD 5.24 billion.” Does it mean business as usual, despite ‘price-fixing’ law suits in the US, since 2016?

Similar impression one would probably get from the Indian scenario, as well. Notably, despite price control, which is continuing since last five decades, the growth rate of the Indian pharma market, which is dominated by branded generics, remains very impressive.According to the January 2019 report of IBEF: “The country’s pharmaceutical industry is expected to expand at a CAGR of 22.4 per cent over 2015–20 to reach USD 55 billion.” So also the same game, probably!

Conclusion:

It appears, there is certainly a huge reputation or image crisis for the generic drug industry, as such, due to such alleged delinquencies. However, from the business perspective, the manufacturers are still having enough leeway to move on with similar measures, supported by fresh thinking. At the same time, it seems unlikely to have any form of drug price control in the United States, at least, in the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, price pressure due to cut-throat competition could even be more intensive, as it gets reflected even in the US-FDA statements.

Nearer home, the Indian generic drug business has been hit with a double whammy – allegations for dubious drug quality standards, on the one hand, and price manipulation on the other, besides dented reputation and image – widening trust gap with patients and governments.

Moreover, unlike the best export market even for generic drugs – the United States, India has been following some patchy policy measures for health care, as a whole. The drug price control system is one such. Till a holistic policy on health care is put in place for all, backed by an effective monitoring system, The Indian price control system may remain like a ‘maze’, as it were, with several ways to hoodwink it.

Hence, the ‘cat and mouse game’, albeit in a different format, is likely to continue, until one gets caught, or till all concerned puts their act together – putting patients at the center of the core business strategy.

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.

Gene Therapy Price: Commercial Viability And Moral Dilemma

Posted on by
Reply

On May 24, 2019, Novartis announced the US-FDA approval of ‘the first and only gene therapy’ – Zolgensma, for a type of Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA), a lifesaving treatment for infants of less than 2 years of age. This unique drug halts disease progression with a single, one-time intravenous (IV) infusion.

On value offerings of Zolgensma,the Novartis CEO said: “The approval of Zolgensma is a testament to the transformational impact gene therapies can have in reimagining the treatment of life-threatening genetic diseases like spinal muscular atrophy. We believe Zolgensma could create a lifetime of possibilities for the children and families impacted by this devastating condition.”

Unquestionably, this development in medical science is indeed commendable. But, the jaw-dropping price tag – USD 2.125 millionattached to this product, has brought back gene therapy at the center stage of the incensed debate on access and affordability of such treatment for a vast majority of the population, across the world. Besides, two important issues related to gene therapy need to be effectively resolved – long-term commercial viability and the ‘moral dilemma’ that its market launch would prompt. And both are interconnected and also associated with the pricing rationale of such therapies.

I am terming  the second factor as a ‘moral dilemma’ rather than an ‘ethical dilemma’ because, “ethics is a more individual assessment of values as relatively good or bad, while morality is a more intersubjective community assessment of what is good, right or just for all.”In this article, I shall deliberate on these two interrelated issues. But, before delving into it, let me recapitulate in simple terms, what exactly is ‘Gene Therapy.’

What exactly is ‘Gene Therapy?’

According to US-FDA, human gene therapy seeks to modify or manipulate the expression of a gene or to alter the biological properties of living cells for therapeutic use.

Gene therapy is a technique that modifies a person’s genes to treat or cure disease. Gene therapies can work by several mechanisms:

  • Replacing a disease-causing gene with a healthy copy of the gene
  • Inactivating a disease-causing gene that is not functioning properly
  • Introducing a new or modified gene into the body to help treat a disease

Gene therapy products are now being studied to treat diseases including cancer, genetic diseases, and also infectious diseases.

Gene therapy price has been going higher than highest, thus far:

‘At USD 2.1 million, newly approved Novartis gene therapy will be world’s most expensive drug,’ says another report of May 24, 2019.It is noteworthy that Zolgensma price has been kept higher than the highest priced drug before this product came. If his trend continues, the future gene therapy cost is likely to exceed even Zolgensma price, the implication of which for patients who will need such treatment to save life or manage the disease, will be huge.

Intriguingly, the high treatment cost for a rare ailment like, SMA - a degenerative disorder that usually kills an infant within two years, is not limited to just gene therapy.  According to the April 04, 2019 article titled, ‘Biogen SMA drug price, Novartis estimates for its treatment far too high – U.S. group’ of Reuters, the price of another drug for SMA – Biogen’s Spinraza, which is not a gene therapy, is also very high. Its list price is USD 750,000 for the initial year and USD 375,000 annually. As reported, ‘Spinraza, an important growth driver for Biogen, took in USD 1.7 billion in 2018 sales.’

What should have been the actual prices of these drugs?

Interestingly, to determine the value of these drugs, the nonprofit Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) ‘used a measure known as “quality-adjusted life year” (QALY), in which each year of healthy or near-healthy life resulting from the treatment is worth USD 100,000 to USD 150,000.

Using the QALY benchmark, ICER, reportedly, said Spinraza should cost between USD 72,000 and USD 130,000 for the first year of treatment, and cost USD 36,000 to USD 65,000 per year after that, for infants not yet showing symptoms of the disease.

Further, with an alternative benchmark, known as life-year gained (LYG) based on the additional number of years a person lives due to a treatment, Spinraza is, reportedly, worth USD 83,000 to USD 145,000 in year one, and USD 41,000 to USD 72,000 annually thereafter, as ICER determined.

Zolgensma, on the other hand, would, reportedly, be worth USD 310,000 to USD 900,000 for Type 1 SMA patients based on the QALY assessment, and USD 710,000 to USD 1.5 million using the LYG calculation, ICER said.

Notwithstanding, whether one takes the QALY assessment or LYG based price of Zolgensma and Spinraza, the treatment cost of rare diseases, such as SMA for infants, is beyond the affordability of most people – whenever these drugs become the only choice to save lives. Thus, the question comes: Is gene therapy commercially viable or sustainable?

Is gene therapy commercially sustainable?

Undoubtedly, the development of gene therapy signifies yet another milestone in medical science to save lives, which is highly commendable. Nevertheless, the question arises, who will be able to afford this treatment? Thus, is development of gene therapy commercially viable and could be a money churner for a company on a long-term basis? There doesn’t appear to be a clear answer to these questions, just as yet. There are several reasons for this apprehension. But, I am citing below just two examples – related to their humongous treatment cost.

According to the article, published in the Scientific American, in the past five years, two gene therapy drugs have been approved in Europe and one in the United States. The name of this article is ‘Gene Therapy Is Now Available, but Who Will Pay for It?’ Interestingly, only three patients have so far been treated commercially with gene therapy, in Europe.

UniQure’s Glybera, used for a very rare blood disorder, costing around USD 1 million per patient, has been used just once since approval in 2012. However, in 2017, due to commercial reason UniQure decided to withdraw Glybera from the market. Similarly, Strimvelisof Orchard Therapeutics – used for severe Combined Immunodeficiency, costing USD 700,000, ‘has seen two sales since its approval in May 2016, with two more patients due to be treated later this year.’ Interestingly, these apprehensions have not deterred many companies. The ball keeps rolling.

But the ball keeps rolling:

That the ball keeps rolling, and at a faster pace, is evident from what US-FDA envisages in this field. According to US-FDA, by 2025, they are likely to approve 10 to 20 cell and gene therapy products a year. This is based on an assessment of the current pipeline and the clinical success rates of these products.

Importantly, despite apprehension of many, even some of the top pharma players, are fast moving into this space – based on their own assessment of the market. But, to move meaningfully in this direction, there are many several critical success factors, most of which are quite challenging and cost-intensive. A few of these, for example, are – a right collaborative model, ability to develop a scalable manufacturing process and overcoming various technical and regulatory challenges on the way. Interested pharma players, apparently, have realized these needs.

Big Pharma players joining ‘Gene Therapy’ bandwagon:

Big Pharma players, such as, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson (J&J) have started moving into this space. Let me illustrate the point with just a couple of examples.

On March 20, 2019, Pfizer announced: ‘Pfizer has acquired a 15 percent equity interest in Vivet Therapeutics and secured an exclusive option to acquire all outstanding shares.’ Both the companies will collaborate on the development of Vivet’s proprietary treatment for Wilson disease – a rare and progressive genetic disorder, if remains untreated may cause liver (hepatic) disease, central nervous system dysfunction, and death.

Just before this, on January 31, 2019, Janssen Pharmaceutical of Johnson & Johnson (J&J) announced a worldwide collaboration and license agreement with MeiraGTx Holdings plc – a clinical-stage gene therapy company, to develop, manufacture and commercialize its clinical stage inherited retinal disease portfolio, including leading product candidates for achromatopsia. Even prior to this, on January 05, 2018, J&J had announced that the company has established an exclusive research collaboration with the University of Pennsylvania’s ‘Gene Therapy Program’ for fighting Alzheimer’s disease with gene therapy. There are several such instances of gene therapy collaboration for Big Pharma.

With a slightly different collaborative model for gene therapy, on April 12, 2018, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) signed a strategic agreement to transfer rare disease gene therapy portfolio to Orchard Therapeutics, taking a 19.9 percent stake in the company and a seat on the board. Simultaneously, this agreement strengthens Orchard’s position as a global leader in gene therapy for rare diseases.

What could be the moral dilemma in gene therapy pricing?

The dilemma with gene therapy is that they are frightfully expensive, but at the same time is ‘life-transforming’ for many, across the socioeconomic spectrum. This could be another ‘moral dilemma,’ as such exorbitant, if not seemingly ‘vulgar pricing’, as it were, would raise many questions on the company’s own principles regarding right and wrongin saving lives of patients with its gene therapy.

The reason for this moral dilemma in, especially gene therapy pricing is aptly elucidated in an article titled, ‘How to pay for gene therapies in developing nations,’ published in  Evaluate Vantage on March 22, 2019. Admitting that discrepancies in healthcare between rich and poor nations are nothing new, the article also raises a flag, indicating: ‘The potentially curative nature of many gene therapies heightens the moral conundrum that companies will face if and when these projects get to market.

Acknowledging that gene therapies are hot right now, with their developers taking aim at everything from hemophilia to rare eye diseases prevalent in rich nations,the author raises a pertinent question: ‘With rich countries like the US finding it hard to fund gene therapies, it is worth asking whether these projects will ever reach patients in developing countries. And if they do how will companies cope?’

Intriguingly, to create a larger market some are also targeting disorders, largely seen in poorer areas, such as sickle cell disease that could prove valuable also in the developing world. Expectedly, the pressure will mount from many corners to provide gene therapy at an affordable price. Big pharma players are likely to face this strong head wind, adding further fuel to fire of the moral dilemma of gene therapy pricing, especially for the developing world. As on date, no one knows what percentage of people in the developing world will have access to gene therapy. Even Novartis, reportedly, does not seem to have any plan to make its product available in the developing nations.

Conclusion:

Despite what has happened so far, as described above, looking around, we find a steady flow of gene therapy, some even promise remedial treatment outcomes. Big pharma companies, as well, have commenced a long-haul journey in this direction, with big stake investments.

Regarding, not achieving a huge commercial success with gene therapy, so far, one point is common for all, these are for the treatment of very rare diseases. Probably, because of this reason, some companies, having taken a cue from it, are moving away from ultra-rare diseases. Illustratively, GSK is still looking to use gene therapy in a collaborative platform, to develop treatments for more common diseases, including cancer and beta-thalassemia – another inherited blood disorder – as the above Scientific American article reported.

That said, the point to ponder now, if the effort to come out with a remedial gene therapy for these indications fructifies, would it ensure a long-term commercial viability, alongside giving rise to a moral dilemma on the rationale for gene therapy pricing? This seems to be akin to a ‘chicken and egg’ situation. It will be interesting to witness how it pans out, as we move on.

By: Tapan J. Ray   

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

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

Recapitulating D&I:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D&I is a growth driver for an organization:

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

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

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

Some drug companies are moving in this direction:

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

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

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

Two facets of D&I for a pharma company:

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

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

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

More challenging is dovetailing business savviness with social empathy: 

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

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

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

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

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

Assigning specific accountability for D&I implementation:

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray  

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

The Game is Changing: Ensure Better Treatment Outcomes: Leverage Technology

Posted on by
Reply

Today, several pharma players, mostly ‘encouraged’ by many non-pharma tech companies, are trying to gain, at least, a toehold in the digital health care space. It is visible even within the generic drug industry. Such initiatives, as they gain a critical mass, will remold the process of doing – almost everything in the pharma business, catapulting the concerned drug companies to a much higher growth trajectory, as many believe.

This is quite evident from an interview of Fierce Pharma with the senior management of Sandoz – the generic drug arm of Novartis, that was published on May 14, 2019. The honchos said: “We’re looking across the whole value chain to make sure we’re embracing digital and technology wherever we can. So that means from the way that we innovate, to the way that we sell and the way that we operate and do day-to-day business.” The process covers “a whole range of activities from how you use AI and automation, all the way through to prescription digital therapies.”

I discussed about leveraging technology in the pharma space to address many burning issues – both for patients and the pharma industry. One such article, “Focus on Patient Compliance To Boost Sales…And More…”, was published in this blog on May 20, 2019. It establishes that even world-class sales and marketing programs can, at best, ensure higher prescription generations, but can’t prevent over 50 percent revenue loss from those prescriptions, due to patient non-compliance.

Interestingly, the issue of ‘nonadherence to treatment’ is being debated, since several decades. Various conventional measures were suggested and also taken. But the problem still persists in a huge scale, with probably an increasing trend. Thus, fresh measures, preferably by leveraging modern technology, are of high relevance in this area.

In this article, I shall illustrate the above point, with one of the most exciting areas in the digital space – the digital therapeutics. This is a reality today and marching ahead at a much faster pace than many would have anticipated.

Unfolding another disruptive innovation in healthcare:

One of the articles that I wrote on this subject is ‘Unfolding A Disruptive Innovation in Healthcare,’ which highlights a different facet of the same subject. Thus, let me begin today’s discussion with a recapitulation of some important aspects of a drug, particularly the following ones:

  • A large number of patients don’t find many drugs accessible and affordable during the entire course of treatment.
  • Drugs have to be administered orally, systemically or through any other route
  • Alongside effective disease prevention or treatment, many drugs may bother patients with long and short-term side-effects, including serious ones.
  • Treatment outcomes can’t often be easily measured by patients.

These are, of course, known to many, but several questions come up in this area, which also deserve serious answers, such as:

  • Are drugs indispensable for the treatment of all types of disease?
  • Can a holistic disease treatment be made more accessible and affordable with radically different measures?
  • Can the same effectiveness of a drug, if not more, be achieved with no side-effects with a non-drug therapy?
  • Can outcomes be significantly improved following this process, as compared to drugs?

In search of answers to these questions – arrive digital therapeutics:

In search of answers to the above questions, a number of tech savvy whiz kids. dared to chart an uncharted frontier by asking themselves: Is it possible to treat a disease with a software – having no side-effects, but providing better cost effectiveness and treatment outcomes to patients?

Today, with the signs of healthy growth of the seed – sown with the above thoughts, ushers in – yet another game changing pathway for disease treatment. The quest for success of these pathfinders can benefit both – the drug innovators and also the generic players, in equal measure, besides patients. Digital therapeutics is an upshot of this pursuit.

Its ‘purpose’ outlines – why it’s one of the most exciting areas in digital space: 

The Digital Therapeutics Alliance well captures the purpose of digital therapeutics, as, “Improving healthcare quality, outcomes, and value through optimizing the use and integration of digital therapeutics.”

What do digital therapeutics actually do?

There are several, but quite similar descriptions of digital therapeutics. For example, Deloitte described digital therapeutics as software products used in the treatment of medical conditions, enabling patients to take greater control over their care and are focused on delivering clinical outcomes. It also highlights, ‘digital therapeutics are poised to shift medicine’s emphasis from physically dosed treatment regimens to end-to-end disease management based on behavioral change.’

Digital therapeutics offers all positives of a drug and more:

In indications where digital therapy is approved and available, the new approach offers all positive attributes of an equivalent drug, with no side-effect. There isn’t any need of its physical administration to patients, either. Deloitte elucidated this point very aptly: “As software and health care converge to create digital therapeutics, this new breed of life sciences technology is helping to transform patient care and deliver better clinical outcomes.” More importantly, all this can be made available for better compliance and at a cheaper cost in many cases.

For example, according to the article published in the MIT Technology Review on April 07, 2017, carrying the title ‘Can Digital Therapeutics Be as Good as Drugs?’: “Some digital therapeutics are already much cheaper than average drug. At Big Health, people are charged $ 400 a year, or about $ 33 a month to use the insomnia software. The sleeping pill Ambien, by contrast, costs $ 73 for six tablets of shut-eye.”

Two basic types of digital therapeutics:

The Digital Therapeutics Alliance also underscores: “Digital therapeutics rely on high quality software to deliver evidence-based interventions to patients to prevent, manage, or treat disease.” It further elaborates: “They are used independently or in concert with medications, devices, or other therapies to optimize patient care and health outcomes.” In line with this description, the above MIT Technology Review article, as well, classifies digital therapy into two basic categories:

  • For medication replacement
  • For medication augmentation

It also says that the digital therapy for sleep (sleep.io), belongs to the first category, making sleeping pill most often unnecessary and with outcomes better than those of tablets. Whereas, the second category includes various disease specific software apps that improve patient compliance with better self-monitoring, just as co-prescription of drugs.

Nonetheless, the same MIT article gave a nice example of ‘medication augmentation’ with digital therapy. The paper mentioned, Propeller Health – a digital company, has inked a deal with GlaxoSmithKline for a ‘digitally guided therapy’ platform. The technology combines GSK’s asthma medications with Propeller Health made sensors that patients attach with their inhalers to monitor when these are used. Patients who get feedback from the app, end up using medication less often, the study reported.

The first USFDA approved digital therapy:

Let me give one example each of the launch of ‘medication replacement’ and ‘medication augmentation’ digital therapy, although there were other similar announcements.

  • On November 20, 2018, by a media release, Sandoz (Novartis) and Pear Therapeutics announced the commercial availability of reSET – a substance use disorder treatment that was the first software-only digital therapeutic cleared by the US-FDA, for medical prescriptions.
  • Closely followed by the above, on December 21, 2019, Teva Pharmaceutical announced US-FDA approval for its ProAir Digihaler for treatment and prevention of bronchospasm. Scheduled for launch in 2019, it is the first and only digital inhaler with built-in sensors that connects and transmit inhaler usage data to a companion mobile application, providing insights on inhaler use to asthma and COPD patients – for prevention and better treatment of the disease.

Many other projects on digital therapeutics are fast progressing.

Conclusion:

Stressing a key importance of digital therapeutics in chronic disease conditions, McKinsey article of February 2018, titled ‘Digital therapeutics: Preparing for takeoff’, also underlines: ‘Digital therapeutics tend to target conditions that are poorly addressed by the healthcare system today, such as chronic diseases or neurological disorders.’

It also, further, emphasized that digital therapeutics can often deliver treatment more cheaply than traditional therapy, by demonstrating their value in clinical terms. It illustrated the point with US-FDA’s approval for a mobile application that helps treat alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine addiction, well-supported by clinical trial data. The results showed 40 percent of patients using the app abstained for a three-month period, compared with 17.6 percent of those who used standard therapy alone.

I now come back to where I started from. The pharma ball game is changing, and that too at a faster pace.Ensuring and demonstrating better treatment outcomes for patients – both for patented drugs and the generic ones, will increasingly be the cutting-edge to gain market share and grow the business. Thus, leveraging technology to its fullest is no longer just an option for pharma companies. The evolution of digital therapeutics as a game changer, vindicates the point.

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.